Tiger Woods Ain't no Martin Luther King, Jr

Although Tiger Woods has done very little to affirmatively address issues related to African Americans and females in America; he has even refused to identify himself as Black, using weaken reasoning put forth by no one but him. So one could not say that he is interested in serving anyone except himself. That may be said about Michael Jordan also.

These are not political creatures. And it may be best that they stay in the positions they are in: doing their sport and nothing else. We have seen enough novice spokesmen for Black causes make a mess of things.

However, last week the New York Times ran an editorial calling upon him to refuse to play in The Masters because they do not allow women. That was an interesting call by the Times, but surely there are other significant names in golf who should be called on to abstain from The Masters for the same reason.

Why is Tiger, who has not been a friend to Black or female issues, now to become a friend to female issues? This is a burden great to bear. Is it because the Times assumes that since this predominantly white sport has made Woods rich that he is now indebted?

If that is the assumption, it is usually an assumption that is peculiarly appropriate to the slew of Black Conservatives and white created Black leaders. Young Tiger Woods has been the best in this sport and he has been paid handsomely, but so has anyone else who has mastered the sport to his proficiency.

For the New York Times to call on Woods to become political, while he has refused to do so in the past, assumes a position and obligation on him not evidenced. If Woods does, indeed, move as the New York Times calls him to do, he assuredly will show his strips. And that would not be good for him. The Black community would pillory him something fierce.

Let Tiger Woods alone, and let him play his sport and keep quiet, after all, he ain't no Martin Luther King, Jr.
Frank A. Jones