Antiblackness and Its Ethics
Trump’s Indictment, Caitlin Clark/Angel Reese, and the Rule of Law
Last Friday, Donald Trump became the first ex-President to face criminal charges. Of all the things Trump theoretically could have faced criminal charges for - from publicly supporting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville (which killed people) to downplaying the COVID-19 pandemic (which killed people) to inciting mass shootings and hate crimes with his rhetoric (which killed people) - it is the falsification of business records in order to provide “hush money” payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels that materially resulted in an indictment. The actual atrocities committed by him, in both his individual and official capacities, are regarded as unfortunate political positions and policy choices, but not genuine transgressions. It isn’t the acceleration of precarity and premature death exacted upon vulnerable people that is an affront to the rule of law, but, rather, the failure to uphold the appearance of a democratic ethos. This is what people really mean when, in response to Trump’s possible arrest, they gloat that “no one is above the law.” The “law” is an expectation of deference and decorum. It mandates propriety as a proxy for clarifying real morality. By indicting Trump for something illegal, but, ultimately, inconsequential, consequential things become nothing while inconsequential things become everything. Precarity and premature death are maintained even as the affect of moral authority is achieved. A shallow formulation of the ethical is fashioned while leaving the larger context of the unethical undisturbed.
The theme of moral authority continued into the weekend. On Sunday, LSU beat Iowa to win the women’s NCAA Championship. A viral moment occurred when LSU star Angel Reese taunted Iowa star Caitlin Clark with the same gesture that Clark used to taunt her opponents a few nights before. It’s still trending on Twitter. The white sports media called Reese a “classless piece of shit” (Dave Portnoy) and a “fucking idiot” (Keith Olbermann). If you let them tell it, Reese’s actions were worthy of condemnation because Clark was in a decisively vulnerable moment and Reese was in a decisively dominant one - nevermind that when Clark taunted Louisville’s Hailey Van Lith with the gesture, it was to heighten the effect of her own display of dominance on her way to a 40-point triple-double sealed with a victory. When Iowa played against South Carolina a few nights later, Clark refused to guard Raven Johnson at the three-point line, instead waving her off and daring her to shoot. Clark was sending Johnson a message that she wasn’t good enough to defend. Iowa ended up beating South Carolina too, putting an end to their undefeated season. South Carolina took Clark’s move as disrespect, which is the way it was intended. Unfortunately for Clark, Reese and LSU took Clark’s pattern of disrespect as a challenge. You get it how you live.
The ethics of antiblackness say that Reese can beat Clark, but she can’t beat her and be vindictive at the same time. She can’t beat her and also embarrass her, even if Clark would have undoubtedly done, and, in fact, did do the same to other players and teams. Black sports media immediately noted the hypocrisy of Reese being criticized for performing the exact same gesture of bravado for which Clark was celebrated. But my point here is that the reason for the criticism was that Reese violated some rule of law. Some paradigm of sportsmanship. Some ethical standard of deference and decorum meant to police and stabilize norms. And, as in all forms of all policing, antiblackness operates as a tool to determine who should and shouldn’t be punished for similar behavior.
In the instances of both Trump’s indictment and Reese’s condemnation, predatory relationships are maintained through the elevation of manners and the social mores of polite society. Democrats hate Trump as a singular symbol of right-wing demagoguery, but they don’t particularly care about his antiblackness. The white sports media doesn’t particularly care about its double standards. Deference and decorum are the only ethics and they are an antiblack substitute for a real system of values. The arbitrary assertion of rules and ethical transgression is deployed to act like moral superiority exists where it doesn’t. The meaningless is marketed as meaningful and legitimate sites of moral outrage are accepted as the cost of doing business.
