Cricket, racism and bananas

 Azeem Rafiq's testimony to the Commons DCMS select committee yesterday was a tough listen. It was compared today in a thoughtful column by Mike Atherton, the Times chief cricket correspondent, to Michael Holding's "magnificent monologue" about Black Lives Matter in the summer of 2020.

The after effects will run through cricket - and probably other sports and other institutions - for some time. As long as youngsters and their families of all backgounds aren't put off the sport the longer term impact should be positive. 

Though not for everyone: I can't see Michael Vaughan's career as a pundit continuing. Whether that is fair I can't judge. While it was Rafiq's word against Vaughan's denial we were in the usual grey area of 'not proven' but Adil Rashid's rather delayed backing for Rafiq's tesimony about what Vaughan said in 2009 will probably be decisive. 

Rafiq is a highly credible witness. And yet... Vaughan has always struck me as  a good character. I recall tipping him as a future England captain when he was first selected for the team. Though it didn't take much spotting: the sort of chap often dubbed "ideal son-in-law material". So I found the story a bit surprising. Clearly Rafiq suffered many micro and not so micro aggressions in his time at Yorkshire, though the fact that he was accompanied by at least three other ethnic minority players in the team that Vaughan is photographed addressing in 2009 and allegedly saying "there are too many of you lot" shows that those players were given more than a chance to make the team. Vaughan says he remembers the day well as a historic one for Yorkshire cricket as it was the first time four players of Asian heritage had been selected in the same Yorkshire team so he made a point of congratulating them:

While Rashid and a third player have supported Rafiq's testimony other Yorkshire players present that day, including Ajmal Shazad, have not. Witness testimony can be unreliable, especially after 12 years or so. And things people say can be misconstrued, even if the memory of the words is faultless, which may or may not be the case. Even if words like that were used, context can be all: Vaughan might have said "some people think....". But then he might not. Sky Sports footage has been unearthed which might shed light on what was said, though evidence of this type rarely proves conclusive. There didn't seem to be a lack of welcome in this scene:

Of course appearances can be deceptive and it's not great to be included only on unreasonable terms.

Vaughan will probably be colateral damage of a fight in what is clearly a good and necessary cause. One that has quite a long way to go yet in turning sport and plenty of other aspects of our life into the fair and inclusive society that most of us would want to see. After all, Rafiq's testimony was that things got worse when the Yorkshire head coach changed in 2016, so even if tempted we can't dismiss 2009 as ancient history.

The aspect I found most egregious in Rafiq's tesimony was his treatment after losing his stillborn baby son. Of course we don't know if his callous and inhuman treatment was necessarily driven by racism or just misplaced priorities by unsympathetic management. But given the overall picture it seems likely.

It is easy to wonder "why didn't you say something at the time?" but to the victim it may well feel better to keep your head down for fear of making things worse. This is why it's so important that there are rigorous complaints procedures which are applied properly in practice. And why management can't afford to turn a blind eye to low level "banter" (i.e. abuse). Or be so remote that there is no awareness of what is actually happening.

I was thinking about these issues yesterday before seeing Rafiq's testimony as the issue came up over coffee after a tight and entertaining betterball match at golf had put my group in a buoyant mood. One chap had been in the army before his current lucrative career as a train driver. He was in the Guards and was present when the first black guardsman was introduced to the mess. We went quiet as the hurt, bewilderment and anger were still there in his eyes and voice after more than three decades: "they threw bananas at him".  One of Tony's friends was designated as the new guard's "minder" to afford him at least some protection from the ongoing abuse.

In our now serious discussion about whether or not progress is being made we noted this was three decades on from the Windrush generation arriving to help us rebuild the British economy and another decade on from campaigns such as Rock Against Racism which helped to educate a generation in the 1970s. Across the board a lot of progress has been made but the worst incidents, when they occur, seem to be more hateful than ever.

Beyond the obvious aggravating factor of social media my buddy Tony has an explanation which I think has some validity. There was so much ignorance which has been lessened by education, he said. But this has made the real hard core racists, who as a result have fewer followers and copycats, much more virulent and aggressive as they see the battle being gradually lost.

This made me think back to my outrage in the 1990s when I was told one of my younger son's team-mates in the under 11s had been called the P word in a match by an opponent. I referreed the team's games on occasion and assured them if I heard anything similar when I was in charge an automatic red card would be issued. (The risk of a bit of an argument with a player's parent afterwards wouldn't have dissuaded me as those who know how much I like an argument will probably understand).

It also reminded me of my school days and the introduction of the first black pupil to our grammar school when I was about 13 or 14. The lad was in my year but not my class and, very soon after his arrival, we happened to engage each other in conversation one day as we walked away from the school for a hundred yards or so until I turned off toward's my parents' house. "What were you talking to him for?" I was subsequently challenged. "Why not?" was my response. But this was how it worked - peer pressure from the alpha males meant that this young scholar and the ones who gradually followed were cold-shouldered. So even though there was no banana throwing and very little blatant hostility the extent of integration was, to choose an odd phrase, skin deep at best.

Tony's analysis is that more and more people are refusing to follow the few who spread the poison which in turn is making them ever more aggressive.

If so we need to push harder. In that context Azeem Rafiq's brave testimony can only have helped.