The NAACP has called on Black high school athletes to forego enrolling in universities in several Southern states. This boycott, which would primarily affect schools in the SEC and ACC athletic conferences, also asks Black college athletes to enter the transfer portal in favor of rival conferences, such as the Big Ten. The NAACP issued a press release on May 19th. It reads in part:
“The NAACP today launched the ‘Out of Bounds’ campaign, a national call for Black athletes, families, fans, alumni, and consumers to withhold athletic and financial support from public universities in states that have moved to limit, weaken, or erase Black voting representation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted what was left of the Voting Rights Act. The NAACP identified eight priority states … and targeted flagship public athletic programs generating more than $100 million in annual revenue that continue to recruit Black athletes while their state governments dismantle the political power of Black communities.”
While I believe that the call for the boycott is sincere, I’m not sure that even the NAACP believes it will succeed. The obstacles standing in the way are numerous and substantial. For one, many variables attend the process of selecting the “right” school for an athlete, including competition for a particular position, preference for particular coaches, and size of scholarship offers (though NIL deals render that issue less important for elite athletes). In other words, the “right fit” tends to be very important to athletes, often more so than for non-athletes.
Perhaps most importantly, even during the height of Jim Crow it was difficult to get African Americans to sustain boycotts for the year or more that would often be necessary to force lasting change. For example, the 13-month Montgomery Bus Boycott was the spark that ignited the Civil Rights Movement. That effort was incredibly successful in achieving its goal, but it was rife with logistical nightmares, countless acts of violence by whites who fought integration, and behind-the-scenes tensions between Martin Luther King, Jr. and some local Black leaders and organizations. The boycott initially was planned for just one day; the organizers knew that its efficacy was far from guaranteed.
The NAACP’s current quest for a national boycott of southern universities seems especially daunting given the differences in motivations and desired outcomes between the 1960s and now. For example, the involvement of teens and young adults was crucial to the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the boldness and creativity of youth activists today, many athletes don’t necessarily embrace the notion that their actions could affect Black communities generally. Their drive to be excellent individually sometimes is a substitute for being actively engaged in “uplifting the race” (a phrase that was often used in former days).
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Moreover, while African Americans have never been monolithic in our beliefs, it is no longer axiomatic that boycotts or similar actions will appeal to 90% of the Black population. Thus, while a relatively small percentage of people actively participated in civil rights protests, it would have been exceedingly rare for the great majority of Blacks to oppose actions that were designed to, say, integrate lunch counters. Further, the end goal was time-tested and clear: keep sitting at the counter — with a willingness to be beaten — until segregationist laws and practices were changed.
To be sure, there are encouraging signs that the collective fight for racial justice is not dead. In fact, in the last couple of years there has been at least one contemporary example of a successful national effort that is aimed at correcting what the vast majority of Black folks view as a grave misstep: the boycott of (or “fast” from) Target due to the retail chain dropping its DEI efforts.
Though a prominent pastor who initially called for the boycott came under scrutiny a few months ago for allegedly “selling out” the boycott, it continues. Target’s leadership has publicly acknowledged that the boycott has been a factor in slowing the chain’s sales, though they point to “other reasons” as well.
But suppose that a dozen or so “five-star” football players from the class of 2027 very vocally decided to attend Penn State instead of LSU due to Louisiana’s voting map redistricting. Would there be near unanimity among Blacks in affirming such a move? Probably not. More importantly, would Louisiana’s legislature rush to undo its decision to eradicate its sole Black voting district? Not likely.
It’s one thing to ask people not to shop at a particular vendor; it’s another thing to ask them to potentially harm their livelihood, especially when a high percentage of Black athletes come from low-income families. Thus, the NAACP’s call feels more like a plea for emotional solidarity and reflection rather than a realistic action plan.
To be clear, I strongly support the NAACP’s aims in calling for the boycott. If it were the case that, say, 90% of Black athletes, especially elite ones, joined the Big Ten or enrolled in HBCUs instead of SEC and ACC schools, I have no doubt that the resulting pressure to force change in redistricting laws (not to mention anti-DEI practices) would be very difficult to resist.
Still, I’m skeptical that such will be the case. Thus, people of all races who take democracy and equality seriously (i.e., beyond lip service) must coalesce around principles and practices that will lead to reform.
Given that there is no way for ordinary citizens to pressure a Supreme Court that has so zealously abrogated Black political power, we must organize to shake the Congress — and local legislatures — out of their anti-democratic and immoral stupor. And we must continue to put economic pressure on businesses that acquiesce to political leaders. In the inimitable words of Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
