Haters who framed Caitlin Clark's success as racial now dismiss race when she's targeted on the court
Caitlin Clark was violently fouled again Wednesday night, this time when Phoenix Mercury forward Alyssa Thomas appeared to drive her fist into Clark's throat. Officials didn't call a foul. The following day, the WNBA suspended Thomas for one game.
Predictably, the usual suspects in sports media spent Thursday dismissing any suggestion that the play had anything to do with race.
"Some of you dummies can’t help but make any issue no matter what about race huh? You support someone, it’s race related. You don’t support someone, it’s race related. The stupidity of a lot of you has zero bottom. It’s amazing. But then again, it isn’t. It’s 2026," ESPN analyst Louis Riddick posted on X.
WNBA SUSPENDS ALYSSA THOMAS FOR 'RECKLESSLY' HITTING CAITLIN CLARK IN THROAT DURING SCRAMBLE
Jemele Hill went further, accusing those who believed officials should have called a foul of "implying that [Clark] should receive special treatment because she’s straight and white."
She then directed the criticism at me after I argued that Clark deserved to be officiated like every other player, regardless of her race.
How dare I?
"Secondly, y’all the ones always hollering and crying about race being brought up too much … but surprise, surprise, that isn’t the case now," she tweeted.
No one can say for certain that Thomas cheap-shotted Clark because she is White. But it's entirely reasonable to ask whether race played a role. After all, the same people dismissing that possibility have spent the past three years arguing that race and/or racism explain nearly every aspect of Clark's career.
They have repeatedly claimed that Clark became the biggest star in women's basketball because she is a straight White woman.
"We would all be very naive if we didn’t say race and her sexuality played a role in her popularity. While so many people are happy for Caitlin’s success, including the players, this has had such an enormous impact on the game, there is a part of it that is a little problematic because of what it says about the worth and the marketability of the players who are already there," Hill told the Los Angeles Times in 2024.
ESPN analyst Monica McNutt accused young White girls of gravitating toward Clark because she is White. Stephen A. Smith made similar arguments. So did Shannon Sharpe, "The View," USA Today and the New York Times, along with numerous current and former players.
Several of those same players have also accused Clark of benefiting from "white privilege" because she refuses to speak publicly about alleged racism against Black women in the WNBA. Angel Reese even posted a TikTok mocking Clark as a "white girl afraid to catch the fade," alongside a photo of herself confronting Clark.
Last summer, ESPN published a remarkably irresponsible article portraying Clark's fan base as racially threatening. The author described attending a Fever-Sun game where she noticed a fan wearing a MAGA hat. She never explained why that constituted racism. Instead, she concluded the atmosphere itself felt threatening.
"Every time the Fever scored," she wrote, "the crowd would erupt, but it didn’t feel like fans were rooting for their team. It felt like a threat."
Initially, many of these same individuals denied that Clark was targeted at all. When Chennedy Carter blindsided Clark in 2024, they insisted she was simply "playing basketball."
Two years later, that argument has become harder to maintain. The cheap shots are too frequent, too blatant and too consistent. So the narrative has shifted. The fouls are now acknowledged, but any suggestion they reflect a broader pattern is dismissed.
The problem is that these race idolaters cannot have it both ways.
If race is responsible for the advantages Clark enjoys, as they have repeatedly argued, then it must also remain a legitimate consideration when examining the disadvantages she faces, including the way she is officiated.
Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White made that point after Wednesday's game.
"We have a generational talent and WNBA superstar, with two cheap shots right there, that weren’t called," White said. "She is not called the way everybody else is called."
The obvious question is: why?
One explanation is that years of media coverage have shaped attitudes inside the league. If players are repeatedly told Clark owes her popularity, wealth, and influence to racial privilege rather than extraordinary ability, it should surprise no one if some eventually resent her.
And that's increasingly what these incidents resemble: repeated hostility directed at one player.
Three years into Clark's professional career, there is still no evidence that she represents the great White hope. She is a cultural icon for the same reasons as Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Steph Curry and Tiger Woods are cultural icons. Clark is a generational talent with a uniquely entertaining style of play.
In the meantime, she looks more like the great White target with every fist to throat, nail to the eye and shove to the floor.
It is no wonder figures such as Jemele Hill and Louis Riddick have become so defensive. They spent years encouraging audiences to interpret Clark's career through the lens of race. Now others are applying that same framework to Clark's treatment on the court.
It ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun, is it?