Critical race theory and the orthodoxy of race neutrality ... - Informit

Critical race theory and the orthodoxy of race neutrality: examining the denigration of Adam Goodes Stella Coram Chris Hallinan Charles Darwin University Abstract: This study draws on critical race theory to examine common sense assumptions of race and racism so as to identify the distortions in logic in the justification that the booing of Indigenous athlete Adam Goodes was not ‘racist’. It is claimed that the central assumption of race neutrality relies on the assertion that non-Indigenous athletes are booed and that the booing of an individual such as Adam Goodes does not constitute racism since, for this to be the case, it must apply to all Indigenous athletes. Moreover, race is not targeted, only the athlete, nor is booing explicit of race. This study highlights the historical context within which Indigenous athletes are racially discriminated against. We contend that booing represents a covert reworking of the racial vilification of Indigenous athletes and that their vilification is but one form of racism. A theoretical piece, this paper follows in-depth examination of the content of booing (Coram 2016). We understand that Indigenous people have historically been, and continue to be, misrepresented. We also understand the importance of Indigenous voices to counter this. We have worked extensively with Indigenous athletes for more than 20 years, and this has informed our published research. This study seeks to expose white justifications and misrepresentations of race and racism in the context of neoliberal denial of racism in Australia. Adam Goodes was booed mercilessly while competing in the Australian Football League (AFL) season in 2015. It did not matter that the AFL urged spectators not to boo. They went ahead anyway (Dalton 2015). This raises fundamental issues about how we are to make sense of the booing of Goodes and what this might mean for teasing out the underlying implications of race and racism. We express concern that the booing of Goodes was justified at length in the media and we agree with Choules (2007) that the objective

ought to go beyond raising awareness to identify ways to engage with injustice and change. We find it telling that Goodes, retired champion athlete of the Sydney Swans AFL club, epitomised this through his preparedness to engage the Australian community on racism in sport and to advocate for change. He is an ambassador for the anti-racism campaign ‘Racism. It stops with me’. Goodes is represented as a polarising figure in the tabloid press for calling out his racial vilification and for showing his pride in his Aboriginality and Indigenous culture. The booing drew extensive commentary, ranging from support to abject hostility, in the public domain. Goodes is not the first Indigenous athlete to be the subject of criticism. For example, Anthony Mundine, Nicky Winmar and Nova Peris received considerable negative press for their public stances. But the intensity and volume of hostility directed at Goodes is arguably unprecedented. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 99

Critical race theory and the orthodoxy of race neutrality

The inability to see race, unless framed in relation to anti-racism — captured, for instance, in liberalist ideology of black athletic superiority — begs the foundational question, ‘what is racism in post-racial society?’ How are we to define it? If racism is a thing of the past, what are the implications of this for understanding the booing of Goodes and the justifications invoked to defend booing? We argue that the booing of Goodes is defended on the assumption of racial neutrality. Those who boo do not ‘see’ race, therefore the booing of Goodes is objective of race. This paper critically examines rationalisations of objective neutrality that defend booing as not ‘racist’ so as to reveal the flawed logics of race and racism and to identify related forms of racism (to which denial conforms). We defer from the notion of post-racial society to emphasise the changing significance of race and racism. We point out that racism originates in essentialist assumptions of race difference that can be as much positive as negative. Racism is ubiquitous, ordinary, making it hard to see. Racism is not a singular entity. It has multiple forms of which racial vilification is but one. We challenge the rhetoric of the ‘racist’ to claim that this is simplistic and overstated but that, being highly stigmatised, it provides conditions for denial and, in so doing, delineates from the deeper politics of racial inequality. It is our task, then, to reposition race and racism at the centre of analysis of spectator booing and, in the process, unravel the silences in the denial of race and racism within which the rhetoric of the ‘racist’ is embedded. We draw on critical race theory of race formation (Omi and Winant 2002, 2014) to ground our analytical approach to re-centre race as an ‘organising principle’. Thus race formation examines how race is reformed and replicated through patterns of inequality, including through the racialised body. Vilification of racial or ethnic minorities in sport is not uncommon. It cuts across national boundaries to the extent that, like Goodes, athletes are speaking out. Rio Ferdinand, former Manchester United player in the United Kingdom’s Premier League, has been vocal about the need to address racism in the league. He urges authorities to act by making punishments harsher and expresses doubt about the ability of sport to do it alone. In response, and much like Goodes, he urges social 100 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

change through education (Burdsey and Gorman 2015). Ferdinand, whose father is Saint Lucian and his mother Irish, supports the league’s ‘Kick it out’ anti-racism campaign, which, among other things, encourages players to wear training tops bearing anti-racism messages (Cordy 2013). Goodes and Ferdinand discuss racism in football, particularly in terms of the effects of racism on their families, in an interview conducted by Goodes as part of Channel 7’s coverage of the match between the A-League All Stars and the Barclays Premier League Giants (Burdsey and Gorman 2015). Goodes reveals his experience in 2013 of being racially vilified by a girl aged 13 and then by Collingwood AFL club president Eddie McGuire (Cordy 2013). Ferdinand in turn reveals that his younger brother Anton was racially vilified by Chelsea captain John Terry in 2011, which led to Terry quitting as England’s captain (Cordy 2013). Consistent with Goodes, Ferdinand speaks of racial vilification alluding to ‘monkey’ or ‘ape’. The following is an excerpt from Goodes’ interview with Ferdinand, reported by Cordy (2013): It’s a mad issue and, obviously, it’s been highlighted in the last year or so in our country… People don’t realize the knock-on effect it has. We play in an environment where name calling and teammates having a go at each other, opposing fans shouting is part and parcel of the game, you get used to it, you develop a thick skin. When it becomes personal like that, it’s more family members who take it harder than anybody else. My mum had windows smashed, my brother had bullets in the post and stuff like that with messages, racial messages. It’s just ignorance that you don’t understand, I’m coming from a mixed background, my mum’s white and my dad is black, so I’ve never really seen colour at all as a kid.

We claim that the booing of Goodes represents a variant of racial vilification. It is particularly contentious because it hides behind justification that it has nothing to do with race.

The basis for critical race theory We acknowledge the body of critical race and whiteness studies in Australia, of which Eileen Moreton-Robinson (2000) is a leading proponent,

Coram and Hallinan

and the emphasis on the unrecognised privilege of ‘whites’ in diverse fields such as higher education (Rodriguez 1999). We appreciate that this is helpful for understanding the failure of those who boo to recognise the privileged location from which they do so. We appreciate also that critical race and whiteness and critical race theory (CRT) overlap. However, a key explanatory focus in critical whiteness studies is whiteness, whereas in CRT the focus is the changing significance of race. Thus we defer to CRT on the changing significance of race so as to examine the depoliticising of race and racism and, from this, to restore race and racism to the centre of the analysis of booing. CRT challenges the assumption that race is no longer necessary given the mantra of all being treated equally before the law. But legal rights are largely rhetorical. Delgado and Stefancic (2001:23) distinguish between the constraint of equality of opportunity but not equality of results. They also point out that the inability to see race means that only extreme forms of racism are recognised (Delgado and Stefancic 2001:22). The assumption of extreme feeds into the myopia that racism amounts to racial vilification and that this must be overt, intentional and targeted or exclusive to qualify. Thus distortions in the logic of booing are such that ‘it’ cannot be ‘racist’ if non-Indigenous athletes are also booed. This in turn implies that Indigenous and non-Indigenous athletes are treated the same, therefore racism cannot be seen to apply. Racism, after all, is mistaken as treating people differently on the basis of race. The deeper assumption silenced here is that treating the ‘other’ differently to the rest of society is considered ‘racist’, a classic example of which is affirmative action, but treating whites differently to blacks is not, nor is it even thought of as such. The evaluation of difference, being the measure of racism, is skewed. In public discourse, racism goes both ways but in the case of booing this simply overlooks the political and historical realities of race in terms of who is booed and who gets to boo. Critical race theorists Omi and Winant (2002) pioneered race formations theory to explain the changing significance of race. Race formations take into account the structural arrangements of society and the social dimensions of experience. Omi and Winant (2002:124) argue that it


is important to examine racism as an element of social structure rather than as an irregularity within it. That is to say, racism is typical to society and not an aberration. Structural arrangements refer to the maintenance of unjust systems (hegemony) and the social dimension to human experience. Applying this to booing, it is proposed that the AFL, in being representative of institution, presides over the conditions within which the social dimension of experience — as in being booed — is ignored. Part of the changing significance of racism is that it is depoliticised. Booing is nothing to get upset about, hence the apathy towards Goodes. Consistent with CRT, founded on the ordinariness of racism, we propose that spectator booing is rationalised as unexceptional. It cannot therefore, according to the logic of booing, be ‘racist’ because there is no vehemence of race, just dislike for Goodes. Besides, the justification for denying booing being ‘racist’ is that non-Indigenous athletes are also booed. The assumption of everyone being the same, or equal, ignores patterns of differentiation between the booing of non-Indigenous and Indigenous athletes of which Goodes is representative. The booing was personal and sustained, to the point of Goodes contemplating not taking part in the parade of retiring champions, a feature of pre-AFL grand final entertainment, in 2015 (Cordy 2015). Difference is profoundly contradictory. It is recognised in one context and ignored in another. It is invoked in the assumption that racism involves treating people differently on the basis of race. Yet when Goodes is treated differently — to be booed in an abhorrent fashion that differs to the typical culture of booing to protest umpire decisions, for example — the difference underwriting this is denied. Representative, here, we claim, is the grand narrative of race neutrality within which differences of racial inequality are erased. As such, difference is reworked to explain not inequalities but, instead, the absence of sameness. This fits within the rubric of racial neutrality premised on distorted assumptions of equivalence. In other words, the construct of inequality, which implies discrimination on the grounds of difference, has made way for apolitical rhetoric of a lack of sameness, as a failure of equality. Turned Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 101


on its head, lack of sameness, or difference, is the new discrimination. Kevin Hylton (2005) argues that mainstream writers and practitioners have hidden behind dominant ideologies of objectivity, meritocracy, colour-blindness, race-neutrality and equal opportunity in policy and that the challenge now is for these orthodoxies to be contested in a more sustained way than they have been (Hylton 2005:94). Drawing on Hylton’s (2005) construct of orthodoxy as an ‘objective detachment’, this paper identifies the following orthodoxies. Racism is the intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Racism is treating people differently. Racism is the ignorant ‘racist’. And racism is racial vilification. In the context of the justification of booing on the grounds of objectivity, we claim that orthodoxies of objective detachment are represented in the very denial of booing having anything to do with race and in Goodes being responsible for his own predicament. The inability to see racism is described as ‘colour-blind racism’. Bonilla-Silva (2006:2) argues that ‘whites claim race is no longer relevant yet racial inequality persists, a contradiction between colour blindness and colour-coded inequality’. They (whites) have developed powerful explanations to justify racial inequality that exculpate them from any responsibility (BonillaSilva 2006:2). Colour-blind racism consists of practices that are subtle, institutional and raceneutral. Thus inequalities are maintained no longer by overt discrimination but through fictions of distance and neutrality (Bonilla-Silva 2006:3). This makes the task of situating booing within the context of racism challenging. We maintain, though, that the content of comments accompanying booing reveals the racial undertones of hostility behind the booing (see ‘Rationalising the booing of Goodes’ below). Building on the construct of race neutrality and the related difficulty to see race and racism, we argue that they are depoliticised. In the context of post-racial liberal society, in which the explanatory constructs of race and racism are diminished, the provision of access and opportunity are assumed to mitigate racial discrimination. By implication, the constructs of race and racism become irrelevant to explaining enduring social inequality of Indigenous 102 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

people in particular (Coram 2013). Central to this is the disassembling of race from racism, the effect of which is to pave the way for apolitical categories of race difference to emerge and for racism to be limited to the irrationality of the individual ‘racist’. Society is not thought of as ‘racist’, only individuals (Coram 2013). In this way, the construct of race may be retained in the form of the racial superiority of Indigenous athletes — to be celebrated as an exemplar of the AFL’s open door policy of opportunity and inclusion — unlike the former prevailing discourse of race bound by racial inferiority and exclusion. The AFL, leading the celebration of the contribution of Indigenous athletes to the game, can be seen to fulfil its civic duty to end discrimination. But, as Godwell (2000) maintains, positive attributions have more to do with the achievements of athletes than with the meritocracy of Australian sport. An important contradiction emerges out of the depoliticizing of race and racism. Race is visible (celebrated) in the form of black athletic superiority, while racism or racial discrimination is invisible (denied). As such, the discourse of denial is premised on retention of an apolitical, descriptive version of race that reduces racism to ignorant individuals. In this framework, race is no longer a marker of inferiority and racism is irrelevant in a post-racial world of equality and opportunity. From this, another related contradiction emerges. The ‘racist’ may be overstated, when it does not apply, to undermine critics of race, such as Goodes, and understated when it ought to, such as when racial vilification, a form of objective detachment, reaches a sustained level as it did in the systematic booing of Goodes. That is to say, those who deny racism may be the first to mount disingenuous counter accusations of black racism towards whites, which ignores the historical power imbalance of white authority to enact racial discrimination, but yet may be oblivious when and where racism is blatantly obvious. The underlying tension between what is racism and what is not is indicative that racism is simplistically understood. There is little distinction between racism of bigotry or genocide. They are the same thing. In The nature of prejudice, Allport (1954) disrupts racial orthodoxy to identify five categories of prejudice ranging from ‘antilocution’ (characterised by racial jokes or speech) to

Coram and Hallinan

‘extermination’ or genocide (in which the majority group seeks the removal of the minority). It is our position that racism does not rest entirely on treating individuals or communities defined by race differently. It often can be but this is not a necessary condition for racism. Moreover, to criticise people of a race is not necessarily ‘racist’ though it can be and often is. The crucial distinction to make, we suggest, is the disregard of the racial and or ethnic other — knowing that this is contrary to the dignity of a fellow citizen and doing it (booing) anyway. Racism arises not just from an intent to discriminate but also, importantly, from an absence of intent. Thus the intent to discriminate on the basis of race is not the only means by which racism occurs. It also occurs from inaction or neglect when nothing is done or an issue ignored. It is important to remember, too, that racial discrimination can be positive, as in the case of affirmative action. Taylor (2004:32) draws on Jorge Garcia’s use of disregard to propose a nuanced definition of racism that does away with the distorted logic of intent to discriminate: ‘Disregard means the withholding of respect, concern, goodwill, or care from members of a race.’ Disregard and disrespect cover a range of attitudes from outright hatred to the simple failure to notice that someone is suffering (Taylor 2004:33). This in turn is a refinement of the work of Patricia Williams (Coram 2016). The construct of racism in the context of disregard is persuasive when examining the distorted logic embedded within the rhetoric of the ‘racist’. Racism is a dirty word. As such, it has been replaced by the construct of the ‘racist’ around which we deploy quotation marks to signal its contested nature. A descriptive has become a noun (Coram 2013). It is a superficial term, a label that reduces racial inequality to a single entity: the bigot who picks on an Indian bus driver, the white supremacist, and the genocidal dictator. They are the same with little differentiation between prejudice and deed. Moreover, the ‘racist’ implies an unenlightened individual who can be educated out of his/her racism. Disregard here means the trivialising of discrimination and inequality. The ‘racist’ also implies that racism is singular in form. It is the individual who is ‘racist’, not society or institutions. The construct of the ‘racist’ plays a functional role, an epithet to


provoke. To be labelled ‘racist’ is tantamount to invoking denial and, in the process, to rendering any meaning or claim of racism irrelevant. This is indicated in the understanding that few would agree to being labelled a ‘racist’. ‘Racist’ rhetoric is strategic to shutting down criticism, especially of white institution. Van Dijk (2002: 313) argues that those who raise criticisms about racism are likely to be accused of fanning racism. It is the critic who is the ‘racist’. Goodes (2008) wrote in his essay ‘The Indigenous game: a matter of choice’, in which he reflects on the contribution of Indigenous athletes to Australian football, published in the 2008 Geoff Slattery edited The Australian game of football, ‘I know that when Aborigines play Australian football with a clear mind and total focus, we are born to play it’ (cited in Morrissey 2008). In response to this, the sports historian Gillian Hibbins, as guest on the Marngrook footy show on Foxtel’s Channel 180, and contributor to The Australian game of football, replied: ‘I’m sorry to say that I think it is a racist comment’. Furthermore, ‘if you define racism as believing a race is superior in something, this is what he was doing’ (cited in Morrissey 2008). To label Goodes ‘racist’ for his celebration of difference may be strategic for discrediting such expression, especially in relation to white establishment. More importantly, it is indicative of misunderstandings of what constitutes racism beyond classical racism of white superiority. We argue that Goodes was referring to cultural difference not racial difference in his claim of ‘being born to play’ Australian Rules football, a game that bears remarkable similarities to marn-grook, once played by his forebears on their land, now the home of Australian football, the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Aboriginal land. The land upon which his people were born. It is noteworthy that Hibbins (2008) holds to the theory of the European origins of the Australian code, labelling the marn-grook theory a ‘seductive myth’. Contrary to this, we suggest there is compelling evidence to support the theory (see Brough-Smyth 1878). We reiterate that Goodes was describing the cultural importance of the game to Indigenous athletes. This was not about racial superiority (Coram 2015). In light of the criticism of Goodes as ‘racist’, we Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 103


view denial of marn-grook as the privilege of ‘whitestreaming’ (Hallinan and Judd 2012). Australia is celebrated as a fair, diverse and multicultural society. In the context of the AFL judiciary, fairness has been turned on its head (Coram 2013). It is no longer evaluated in terms of proof of discrimination but, rather, by proof on the absence of discrimination. That is, the standard for not finding discrimination in cases of racial discrimination, before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, has shifted from a determination of being treated fairly to not being treated unfairly (Coram 2013). The latter is a double negative that denies a determination based on actual treatment in favour of one for which there is little or no treatment. Not the same. In this way, the process of investigating fairness is more important than the finding. Thus being treated fairly by an institution, following a complaint of racial discrimination, is the equivalent of mitigating the presence of discrimination. This is helpful in part for revealing the fiction of booing being race-free. That is to say, the only unassailable proof is intent to racially discriminate and, since this cannot be proven, the conclusion to be drawn is that consideration has been given fairly. Applying the logic of this to booing, the absence of proof of overt discrimination means that booing cannot be found to be racially discriminatory.

Ontology of racisms in the AFL Hylton (2008:6) writes that ‘racial inequality in sport as in the law is often seen as exceptional and irregular rather than routinely ubiquitous and deeply ingrained’. He urges writers in sport to unpack the normalising assumptions of race and racism. A critical ontology is crucial to ensure that the unequal distribution of power and resources and the marginalising of blacks are at the centre of research: an epistemology that puts the experience of blacks at the centre of analysis (Hylton 2008). In taking heed, we develop a critical ontology of racisms in the AFL so as to elucidate that the booing of Goodes represents a post-racial reworking of the tradition of the racial vilification of Indigenous athletes. A general assumption is that racial vilification is the sum total of racism. This is implicit in the focus on racial vilification and the absence of any 104 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

recognition, at least by the AFL, that it is aware of the presence of other forms of racism. Contrary to the assumption that racism is the equivalent of racial vilification, we claim that multiple forms of racism coincide with or occur alongside racial vilification. McNamara (1998) writes that racism is written into the rules of Australian Rules football. It is normal, in other words, and part of the game. McNamara (1998:108) observes from a human rights perspective that the dominant culture of racial abuse in the AFL is normal and legitimate: it is integral to the game. According to McNamara (1998:108), the law represents the interpretive community that functions on the assumption that a threshold must be reached for there to be a problem (McNamara 1998:108). It is suggested here that the threshold for the AFL interpretive community is high. It has long been championed in Australian media culture that racism, in the form of racial vilification, has been ‘stamped out’ since the introduction of the AFL’s racial and religious vilification code of conduct in 1995 (Gardiner 1997). Evidence suggests otherwise. In 2011 the celebrated Indigenous athlete Lance ‘Buddy’ Franklin was captured on television footage clearly distressed in reacting to racial slurring from a spectator (Lane 2011). In response, the AFL called on spectators to name the perpetrator (Lane 2011). This is indicative that racism in the form of racial vilification continues to dog the AFL. In the days when this was completely denied, regarded as ‘part of the game’, on-field opponents and spectators took part in this vicious form of bloodless blood sport. Under duress, Indigenous athletes would react, only to be punished heavily by the AFL Tribunal (Coram 2013). After years of protest and denial, the AFL introduced its Racial and Religious Vilification Code of Conduct, Rule 30, in 1995. The rule was drafted by the AFL’s solicitor in conjunction with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is based on the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (Gardiner 1997:4). Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) under Part 11A Prohibition of Offensive Behaviour based on Racial Hatred, states that:

Coram and Hallinan

Certain offensive behaviour will be found discriminatory if it is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people of a certain race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

‘The code makes it an offence for any player or official to insult or vilify a person on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, colour, nationality or background’ (AFL Vilification Framework). The background to the code and the responses of Indigenous athletes has been discussed at length by Gardiner (1997), Coram (2013) and Gorman et al. (2016), to name a few. Gorman et al. (2016) explore the efficacy of the code in terms of its capacity to address not just on-field vilification but also the broader scope of racism off-field. Suffice to say, in its early inception, there were issues. Indigenous players asked that umpires be given the power to report racial abuse. They also sought the introduction of cultural awareness programs for the AFL and the broader community. Indigenous players regarded confidential mediation, a core plank for resolution, a disaster, calling instead for a penalty on the grounds that a core of repeat offenders was not deterred (Gardiner 1997:25). The code was amended accordingly under rule 35 in 1997 (Gorman et al. 2016). The Turnbull coalition government seeks to change Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by replacing ‘offend’ and ‘insult’ with ‘harass’ (Massola 2017). This is significant for the AFL’s code of conduct, to protect Indigenous athletes from racial vilification, since to ‘harass’ is not the same as to vilify. It is objective of race implying an even harder standard of ‘proof’. To remove ‘offend’ and ‘insult’ means to subsume right of dignity not to be racially offended to the greater political right to racially offend racial minorities. Members of the Senate have indicated that they will block the proposed changes (Massola 2017). Protections are weakened, not strengthened, the potential implications of which are far-reaching especially given that the code of conduct does not cover racial vilification by non-playing AFL personnel and spectators, though it can compel non-playing personnel to attend cultural awareness training and confidential meditation. The code, importantly, does not dissuade racial vilification in junior leagues (Coram 2013). Difabrizio (2011) reported on the scale of spectator abuse of racial


and ethnic minorities by opponents, as well as parents, and the harsh treatment of junior athletes by their respective leagues for retaliating to their abuse. It is as if the code of conduct only applies in the professional league. We suggest, too, that the code ignores the history of race relations in Australian sport (see Hallinan and Judd 2013). Racial vilification does not account for liberal racism mediated by celebratory discourse of Indigenous athletic superiority and the attendant burden of hyper-performance (Coram 2007a). Constructed as ‘natural talents’, Goodes (2010) has written on the hard work it takes to be ‘natural’. Thus the expectation is that Indigenous athletes perform to a particular role required of them. This leads into another less recognised form of racism — positional (racial) segregation — in which Indigenous athletes are assigned roles in non-central positions on-field that reflect racial assumptions of black athletic superiority, particularly in terms of speed (Hallinan et al. 1999). They are largely absent in leadership, coaching or administrative roles (Hallinan et al. 2005). The code does not address the range in inequalities confronting Indigenous athletes in their efforts to pursue a career in sport, particularly within the context of race relations (Gorman 2010), nor their denigration in the tabloids (Coram 2015). Then there is the casual racism epitomised by industry leaders who joke at the expense of Indigenous athletes and the ineptitude of the AFL to put a stop to spectator racism or booing. Spectators, it is suggested, have taken on the role of racial vilification, once the domain of opponents, to put Indigenous athletes off their game by vilifying their humanity as Indigenous people but are now subject to sanction under the code. The AFL likely prefers that the matter would just go away. Unfortunately, this approach has created a vacuum for rhetoric of denial to take hold. By deferring, it has left itself open to the criticism that it considers jokes or booing as not ‘racist’ on the grounds that there is no explicit reference to race or intention to discriminate. The key issue for examining this is what is acceptable and not acceptable (McNamara 1998:113). McNamara (1998) argues that the interpretive structure ought to be inverted. Instead of saying that there is no proof of racism, in this case booing, it must be approached from the position Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 105


that there is no proof that it is not ‘racist’. This puts the responsibility back on the perpetrator to explain his/her actions. Consistent with the model of prevention, through raising awareness, the AFL promotes reconciliation between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australia each year by hosting the Indigenous round to celebrate the contribution of Indigenous athletes to the game and Indigenous culture. The idea is that once footy fans appreciate the human perspective of being at the receiving end of racial abuse they will curb their anti-social behaviour. Through shared understanding and mutual respect, racism (racial discrimination) will be prevented in the Australian football community. There will be no need for the AFL to impose a sanction. In this light, the AFL has preferred a ‘softly-softly’ approach to the detriment of Indigenous athletes since the onus has always been on them to explain why on-field vilification is unacceptable. This is the political minefield into which Adam Goodes dared to tread. He sought to go beyond defending himself to insisting on action. His stance brings into stark contrast the racial binary of tolerance and intolerance: that is, institutional tolerance of spectator vilification through booing and intolerance of Goodes’ refusal to tolerate this. With the tendency of the AFL to dither, it is of little surprise that it took a while for non-Indigenous players to understand that they could no longer get away with vilifying Indigenous opponents. Spectators who boo are still to learn this lesson, nor have they been compelled to. Racial vilification is by no means the extent of racism in the AFL; it just happens to be the most obvious and even that is denied or played down to virtually nothing. The same applies to booing. Booing we claim is the new racial vilification. Drawing on the CRT construct of race formations, booing represents a continuation in a pattern of inequality. It follows the history of racisms in the AFL: interpretive or evaluative racism (part of the game), liberal racism (black athletic racial superiority), racial vilification, racism of intolerance (such as booing), and casual racism of disregard and indifference (jokes). Collectively, they are not always observable in overt forms, often being 106 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

layered beneath a veneer of objective language that holds to the status quo of white society.

Rationalising the booing of Goodes The argument of ‘official’ discourses of race and racism was developed to explain institutional approaches to race and racism framed around the hegemony of ‘intent’ to discriminate (Coram 2013). We wish to revise this to emphasise the informality of ‘unofficial’ discourses of race and racism so as to capture spectator utterings of denial to justify their booing of Adam Goodes. A set of rationalisations was deployed to defend the position that it is not ‘racist’ to boo Goodes. These rationalisations are interlaced with narratives of race and racism that are constructed as apolitical, without meaning, without consequence. The foundational sequence in logic is that if race does not exist, or is deemed irrelevant, then there can be no racism. Common sense explanations for defending the booing of Goodes as not ‘racist’ are as follows: • booing is part of the game; there is no intention to discriminate • it’s the man who is booed, which has nothing to do with his race • booing can only be ‘racist’ if it applies to all Indigenous athletes • booing cannot be ‘racist’ if one sees other Indigenous athletes in a positive light • non-Indigenous athletes are also booed • freedom of speech; there is no language explicit of race. Justifications for defending booing contain flawed assumptions of difference that work to neutralise the politics of race and racism. The casual manner in which racial hostility is conveyed brings into perspective the importance for unravelling the distorted logics of race and racism. It matters little that booing wounds if the fiction that this is not constitutive of racism can be held to. Goodes is a ‘sook’: nothing to do with race (cited in Dalton 2015). We defer to Hylton (2008:6), who points out that racism is deeply ingrained. This is indicative of the layers to be peeled back to reveal discourses of race and racism beneath the casual denigration of Goodes. Booing is defended as part of the game. Little has changed from more than 20 years ago, when the racial vilification of Indigenous athletes was

Coram and Hallinan

rampant and considered part of the game. It is in this context we claim that booing represents a reworking of vilification by opponents, the purpose of which is to put Indigenous players off their game by digging at their ‘weaknesses’. It is no coincidence that Goodes was booed most vociferously while being in possession of the ball. Expanding on this, Coram (2016) argues that the booing of Goodes dissolved into a fictitious right of moral equivalence. It could not be ‘racist’ because non-Indigenous athletes are also booed (Coram 2016). This, of course, ignores Australia’s history of discrimination towards Indigenous Australians and the systematic manner in which Goodes, an Indigenous man, was booed in 2015 on top of his vilification in 2013. Booing is normalised as part of the game. Spectators have taken over the role of unsettling Indigenous opponents from their on-field combatants. They are not subject to the code of conduct. This in part explains the communitybased campaign initiated by the AFL calling for spectators to shame those who vilified Indigenous athletes and now, in the case of booing, to shame those who boo. But this does not expose the flawed logics invoked to defend booing as not ‘racist’. Booing is defended on the assumption that it must apply to all Indigenous athletes to be ‘racist’. Team mates Franklin and Lewis Jetta might not have been the targets of booing but Franklin has been racially vilified (Lane 2011) and Jetta showed his displeasure to opposition spectators at their treatment of Goodes through his defiance after kicking a goal (Swanton 2015:42). It does not stand that booing must apply to all. It is sufficient that a member of a community subject to racial discrimination, in the past and present, is confronted with sustained vilification in the form of booing to appreciate the thread of racialisation beneath this. We restate that racism is the racialisation of an individual or a community identified by race or ethnicity. Booing is also defended as not ‘racist’ on the assumption that positive assertions about Indigenous athletes are indicative of anti-racism. Celebratory discourse is presented as proof that one is not bigoted. It is our view that the celebration of the contribution of Indigenous athletes to the AFL has not deterred expressions of hatred towards Indigenous athletes. In this light, it is


possible to conceive of celebratory discourse as patronising and that Indigenous athletes are burdened with the constraint of hyper performance; they cannot be ordinary. They must carry the burden of having to be exemplary athletes and put up with abuse at the same time. Booing is further defended on the assumption that non-Indigenous athletes are also booed. Yes. Non-Indigenous athletes are booed but for different reasons that, typically, are not personal. This usually has to do with protesting umpire decisions or putting a player off a shot for goal. Any booing of non-Indigenous athletes is not bound by a history of racial discrimination and does not begin to even come close to the level of hostility directed at Goodes. This, arguably, is a variant on the outdated argument of sameness or equivalence invoked to defend racial vilification. People with red hair are vilified, called names. The former St Kilda great Tony Lockett was regularly slurred as a ‘fat pig’. The argument of red hair being a source of discrimination is fanciful. There is nothing acceptable about the slurs directed at Lockett. Having said that, matters of body weight do not carry the same burden of discrimination as those underscored by race. The key point (again) is that racial vilification cuts across the history of Indigenous representation in the AFL. This does not apply to nonIndigenous athletes. They are not the same yet the justification of sameness is crucial to the denial of racism. Thus it is rationalised that booing cannot be ‘racist’ if it applies to non-Indigenous athletes. Contrary to this, we claim that racial slurs do not accompany any booing of non-Indigenous athletes and reiterate the point that they are not the ‘same’ — on the field or off the field. Booing is defended on the assumption that this applies not to race but to the man. This is not convincing since just about everything that Goodes has done on the field is as a proud Aboriginal and, yes, black man. It is difficult to separate the actions from the man. Indigenous athletes compete as representatives of their people. Therefore, to boo Goodes means to disregard the people for whom he stands. It was not just individuals who booed but, tellingly, a collective of baying supporters. This suggests that the collective did not like the man. That Goodes was the Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 107


only player to be booed throughout 2015 suggests that Goodes was the only player that supporters disliked and to a high degree. The racial slurs accompanying the booing of Goodes make it clear that the booing of Goodes was racial in context. Goodes is to blame for being divisive, for starting a cultural war by throwing an imaginary spear at spectators (Dalton 2015). This has nothing to do with race and he should just ‘man-up’ — stop ‘whinging’ in other words. The claim of race neutrality, underscored by the man, not his race, is disingenuous since the racial assumption of nativism is implied through dismissive objectification of a spear. This is constitutive of cultural racism in which the spear has been represented in cartoons depicting Aboriginal primitivism and nativism. Wilson et al. (2012) claim that the overt expression of racial prejudice is no longer tolerated so that in the contemporary discourse this is expressed covertly. Thus it can be said that culture represents a veneer behind which racial hostility is encoded. In essence, it comes down to this. The pretence that booing can be justified rests on a core assumption that this is about just one man. It cannot therefore be about race. Due to a single distortion in logic, it becomes okay to denigrate Goodes. This is myopic in the extreme. We refer to Taylor (2004) to restate that racism is the disregard of an individual or group who identify or are identified by race. We draw attention to the social conditions in which booing is justified. Little consideration is given to the privileged location from which spectators booed. It can be claimed in general terms that they ascribe to the cultural hegemony of Australia as a white nation (Hage 1998). Goodes is tolerated so long as he keeps quiet on matters of race and remains grateful for the opportunity to enjoy a career in sport. Spectators might insist that they do not see race. However, they are quick to remind Goodes that he is black, not white, evidenced by their willingness to denigrate him. The effect of this is to ensure his non-belonging. Booing is but one component in the vilification of Indigenous athletes that first came to attention more than two decades ago when Nicky Winmar declared his refusal to stay silent. Overt racial vilification has made way for sleight of hand in the contemporary turn. The veiled swipes — ‘where’d 108 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

you get your boots?’ — accompanying the booing of Goodes (Dalton 2015) are steeped in racial bigotry of black criminality. Questioning his ownership of, or right to wear, branded boots invokes the unsaid of an unearned right to acceptance in the national game. Questioning Goodes’ right to compete with dignity first surfaced most notably in 2013 in relation to an incident involving a 13-year old girl who called him an ‘ape’ (Cordy 2013). Having been called an ape on one occasion too many, Goodes insisted that the perpetrator be removed. We note that this is consistent with his role as an ambassador to the anti-racism campaign ‘Racism. It stops with me’. In defiance of this, pointing out the offender became part of the justification for his booing. The ‘aping’ of Goodes in 2013 is not a one-off event. It is characteristic of a long, ignoble tradition in the evolution of the ‘aping’ of Indigenous athletes (Coram 2007b). Indigenous athletes compete not just as individuals but as representatives of their people. To boo one Indigenous athlete means to vilify all. In that vein, it can be claimed that the booing of Goodes is constitutive of the history of Australian racism. The stark reality is amplified by the fact that the booing was sustained throughout the 2015 AFL season. Booing took hold and was allowed to fester because it was framed in a way that was devoid of race. For instance, Goodes could be derided for being a ‘sook’. It is here that the hegemony of free speech comes into play in terms of justifying the right to dehumanise Goodes as a ‘sook’ on the basis that there was no mention of race. But, of course, race need not be present — racial derision can be delivered by implication as much as by statement. Patterns of inequality are not diminished. They are merely shifting — from overt racial vilification to booing. In an apolitical environment for managing social conflict, the response is to educate spectators on the effects of booing from a human rights perspective. While welcome, this is inadequate because it defers from appreciating the conditions that allow booing to emerge in the first place and because it gives perpetrators an out. They are exculpated from taking responsibility, which puts the onus on the other to be accepting of prevention initiatives. Implied here is that booing is not so much the problem but that

Coram and Hallinan

the unwelcome effects of booing require action to mitigate this. Since retiring at the end of the 2015 AFL season, Goodes has been appointed as an ambassador to the retail store David Jones. It is dispiriting to learn that an online hate campaign to boo Adam Goodes flooded the David Jones website (Karvelas 2015). Love and Hughey (2015) observe that online chat rooms and message boards allow people to vent ‘racist’ discourse that they would not otherwise utter in the public domain. We agree and disagree. Spectators did in fact utter their vile booing in the public domain at sports venues across the nation and online. To address the culture of racial vilification in sport at the grassroots level, amateur sports organisations in Australia have embarked on a campaign to promote diversity. Spaaij et al. (2016) report on the work of 31 Australian sports organisations, drawn from interviews with club personnel, to integrate diversity as part of their role to introduce cultural change. They found that tensions persist and that resistance surfaces when organisations try to transform diversity policy into practice (Spaaij et al. 2016). This is indicative of the challenges confronting sports organisations in promoting inclusion of all in recognition of diversity.

Conclusion: redefining racism Australia prides itself on holding to fairness. Everyone is entitled to a ‘fair go’. Not so for people seeking refuge in Australia who get shipped off to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and not so for the first Australians, the Indigenous people who must fight for their acceptance, the right to compete, the right not to be vilified. In exchange, they must be grateful and perform outstanding feats on the field, despite sustained critical attention from opponents, spectators and media hounds. The onus is on them to prove their mistreatment against a culture of denial. The persistent booing of Goodes suggests that neither racial nor cultural difference is tolerable to the dominant culture unless they are without politics. Acceptance of Indigenous athletes is a long way off when viewed within the understanding that, beyond mere celebration, Indigenous athletes are obliged to accept conditions of inequality to compete.


While Goodes’ announcement of his retirement might draw a collective sigh, signalling hope that this is the end of the issue, we do not see that this is the case. Alas, other Indigenous athletes who speak up can expect to fill the void left by Goodes. The racialised context of booing, in which spectators ignored the AFL message to be good citizens and booed anyway, must be held to scrutiny, otherwise similar mistreatment is likely to resurface. This paper has critically examined misuse of race and racism. Through rationalisation of equivalence, booing is positioned as applying equally to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous athletes. Therefore, the booing of Goodes cannot be ‘racist’. For booing to be ‘racist’, it must apply to all Indigenous athletes, and since it was directed to one man only, it cannot be, especially as there is no mention of race. We claim that the booing of Goodes is constitutive of racism for the following reasons. Non-Indigenous athletes are not booed on the basis of their race. Most excuses for booing Goodes can be traced back to his stand as a proud Indigenous man who stood up to his racial vilification. We further claim that to demean one Indigenous man means to demean Indigenous people and that bigotry in contemporary racial discourse is expressed through sleight of hand. While there is no overt statement of racial discrimination in booing, the racial slurs accompanying the booing make the racialised content to booing apparent. Racism is misunderstood. Drawing on Taylor (2004), we argue that racism is disregard, the absence of decency or consideration for the other. Racism occurs in a historical context of marginality and non-belonging. It defines the experience of people so marginalised. Racism is conveyed overtly or covertly, with or without intent. In times of enlightenment, it is neutral, invisible, suggested or implied. The meanings are clear in their derogation of the body, history, community, culture or identity. Racism applies as much to an individual as it does to the group, community or nation to whom the individual belongs. The culture of booing was once about ‘giving it to the umpires’ for their decisions or for putting players off their shots for goal. It has evolved into a sinister form of systematised, covert racial abuse of a proud Indigenous man. The sustained attack Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 109


upon Adam Goodes has borne out the persistence of racialised thinking that is so embedded in the everyday discourse of many commentators and spectators. Such normalised thinking seemingly permits ‘white-streamed’ Australia to pass itself off as colour-blind. The implications for the success of diversity work especially at the grassroots level and have become abundantly clear in terms of the longterm and committed approach required.

Acknowledgments Our appreciation and thanks to reviewers for their comments and recommendations. REFERENCES AFL Vilification Framework, Australian Football League. accessed 19 March 2017. Allport, Gordon 1954 The nature of prejudice, Addison-Wesley, New York. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo 2006 Colour-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the US, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York. Brough-Smyth, Robert 1878 The Aborigines of Victoria: with notes relating to the natives of other parts of Australia and Tasmania, Ferres Government Printer, Melbourne. Burdsey, Daniel and Sean Gorman 2015 ‘When Adam met Rio: conversations on racism, anti-racism and multiculturalism in the Australian Football League and English Premier League’, Sport in Society 18(5), doi: 10.1080/17430437.2014.976002. Choules, Kathryn 2007 ‘The shifting sands of social justice discourse: from situating the problem with them to situating it with us’, The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 29:461–81. Coram, Stella 1999 ‘Reclaiming Aboriginal identity through Australian Rules football: a legacy of the “Stolen Generations”’, in Tracey Taylor (ed.) How you play the game: papers from the First International Conference on Sports and Human Rights, University of Technology, Sydney, Faculty of Business Publications, pp.159–64. —— 2007a The real and the unreal: hyper narratives of Indigenous athletes and the changing significance of race, Common Ground, Altona, Vic. —— 2007b ‘Evolutionary hegemony and the “aping” of the Indigenous athlete’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 42(4):391–409. —— 2013 ‘The paradox of fairness and the inverting of racial discrimination in Australian sport’, Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues 16(3):2–21.

110 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1

Coram and Hallinan

—— 2015 The real and the unreal: hyper narratives of Indigenous athletes and the changing significance of race (2nd edition), Common Ground, Illinois. —— 2016 ‘Alchemy of rights and racism: a critical reading of the booing of Adam Goodes’, Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues 19(4):42–57. Cordy, Neil 2013 ‘Adam Goodes to determine Eddie McGuire’s fate in racism saga’, Herald Sun, 31 May, accessed 4 May 2016. —— 2015 ‘Goodes declines grand final lap of honour for fear of being booed’, Herald Sun, 21 September, accessed 27 March 2017. Dalton, Trent 2015 ‘Footy crowds: the good, the bad and the ugly’, Weekend Australian Magazine, 29–30 August, pp.14–8. Delgado, Richard and Jan Stefancic 2001. Critical race theory: an introduction, New York University Press. Difabrizio, Michael 2011 “AFL still has work to do in combating racism’, The Age, June 28 accessed 15 March 2012. Gardiner, Greg 1997 Football racism: the AFL’s racial and religious vilification rule no. 35, discussion paper, Koori Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne. Godwell, Darren 2000 ‘Playing the game: is sport as good for race relations as we’d like to think?’, Australian Aboriginal Studies 2000/1:12–19. Goodes, Adam 2008 ‘The Indigenous game’ in Geoff Slattery (ed.), The Australian game of football, Slattery Media Group, Melbourne, pp.175–85. —— 2010 ‘Stereotypes ignore a lot of hard work’, The Age, 19 May, accessed 16 March 2017. Gorman, Sean 2010 ‘Sporting chance: Indigenous participation in Australian sports history’, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal 2(2):12–22. ——, Dean Lusher and Keir Reeves 2016 ‘Introduction: the AFL’s Rule 35’, Sport in Society 19(4):472–86. Hage, Ghassan 1998 White nation: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society, Pluto Press, Sydney. Hallinan, Chris and Barry Judd 2012 ‘Producing benevolence and expertise: whitestreaming marngrook and the other constraints of Australian football’, Journal of Australian Indigenous Studies 15(2):5–13.

Coram and Hallinan

—— and Barry Judd 2013 (eds) Indigenous people, race relations and Australian Sport, Routledge, London. ——, Toni Bruce and Michael Burke 2005 ‘Fresh prince of colonial dome: Indigenous players in the AFL’, Football Studies 8(1):68–78. ——, Toni Bruce and Stella Coram 1999 ‘Up front and beyond the centre line: integration of Aborigines in elite Australian Rules football’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 34(4):369–84. Hibbins, Gillian 2008 ‘A seductive myth’ in Geoff Slattery (ed.), The Australian game of football, Slattery Media Group, Melbourne. Hylton, Kevin 2005 ‘Race, sport and leisure: lessons from critical race theory’, Leisure Studies 24(1):81–98. —— 2008 ‘Race’ and sport: critical race theory, Rutledge, London. Karvelas, Patricia 2015 ‘Goodes above the pack’, Weekend Australian, October 24–25, p.21. Lane, Samantha 2011 ‘Racism row: Buddy wants to move on’, The Age, 20 April, accessed 7 June 2012. Love, Adam and Matthew Hughey 2015 ‘Out of bounds? Racial discourse on college basketball message boards’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(6):877–93. Massola, James 2017 ‘Section 18C: Senate cross bench poised to kill off substantial changes to race hate law’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 March, accessed 21 March 2017. McNamara, Lawrence 1998 ‘Long stories, big pictures: racial slurs, legal solutions and playing the game’, Australian Feminist Law Journal 17:85–108. Moreton-Robinson, Eileen 2000 Talkin’ up to the white woman: Indigenous women and feminism, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Qld. Morrissey, Tim 2008 ‘Goodes racist says AFL historian’, Herald Sun, 15 May, accessed 13 April 2010. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant 2002 ‘Racial formation’ in Philomena Essed and David Goldberg (eds), Race critical theories: text and context, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp.123–4. ——and Howard Winant 2014 Racial formation in the United States (3rd edition), Routledge, New York and London. Rodriguez, Roberto 1999 ‘The study of whiteness’, Black Issues in Higher Education 16(13 May):20–2. Spaaij, Ramon, Jonathon Magee, Karen Farquharson, Sean Gorman, Ruth Jeanes, Dean Lusher and Ryan Storr 2016 ‘Diversity work in community sport organizations: commitment, resistance and institutional change’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 27 June, doi: 10.1177/1012690216654296.


Swanton, Will 2015 ‘The sidekick who practised what his mentor preached’, The Weekend Australian, 1–2 August, p.42. Taylor, Paul 2004 Race: a philosophical introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge. Van Dijk, Teun 2002 ‘Denying racism: elite discourse and racism’ in Philomena Essed and David Goldberg (eds), Race critical theories: text and context, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp.481–5. Wilson, Clint, Felix Guttierrez and Lena Chao 2012 Racism, sexism and the media: multicultural issues into the new communications age (4th edition), Sage Publications, New York. Dr Stella Coram has returned to Australia after a threeyear posting to Papua New Guinea. She met Adam Goodes at the first human rights and sports conference in Sydney, when he responded affirmatively to her paper on reclaiming Aboriginal identity through sport (Coram 1999). Her collaboration with Chris Hallinan on emerging issues in relation to Indigenous research was published in Native games: Indigenous peoples and sports in the post-colonial world. She is about to publish her book on the politics of aid. Associate Professor Chris Hallinan is with the Northern Institute at Charles Darwin. With colleague Barry Judd he has co-edited two volumes: Native games: Indigenous peoples and sports in the post-colonial world, and Indigenous people, race relations and Australian sport. He is currently working on a research project investigating the factors associated with wellbeing and football in remote Aboriginal communities.

Australian Aboriginal Studies 2017/1 111