Last night, I went to bed agitated after reading a column by Bleacher Reportās Jim Cavan that curiously argued Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said something ākind of racist.ā The current version of that piece can be found hereāI emphasize ācurrentā because after immediate backlash, Bleacher Report began substantively editing the piece on the fly, as of yet offering no record of post-published modifications but for a change of headline notification.
This morning, I woke up literally flabbergasted at various takes regarding Mark Cubanās comments. While the public at large seems to have to largely defended Cuban, many members of the media and readers alike have apparently doubled down on the āMark Cuban said something racistā card. This in turn snowballed into accusations that Mark Cuban is not just a person who said something racist but also isĀ anĀ actualĀ racist.
His allegedly racist comments? AtĀ Ā Inc. MagazineāsĀ GROWCO 2014 conference, Cuban said in relevant part:
"I know Iām bigoted in a lot of different ways. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and itās late at night, Iām walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, thereās a guy that has tattoos all over his faceāwhite guy, bald head, tattoos everywhereāIām walking back to the other side of the street⦠No one has pure thoughts⦠but itās about recognizing when you have thoughts that arenāt right."
Iāve read that quotation in context and out of context several times. I have also listened to the actual audio from the conference a couple of times. And I cannot for the life of me comprehend howĀ anyoneĀ could assert in good faith that what Mark Cuban said was racist.
More from Dallas Mavericks
- Grant Williamsā attempt to embarrass camper backfires hilariously
- NBA Rumors: Warriors, Lakers among contenders for key free agent
- Mavericks: Mark Cuban calls Kyrie Irving āmisunderstoodā after new contract
- Why isnāt Matisse Thybulle on the Mavericks?
- The new NBA flopping rules explained
We have all heard the metonym āthe pen is mightier than the swordā adapted from Edward Bulwer-Lyttonās 1839 playĀ Richelieu: Or the Conspiracy. Piggybacking off of that adage, I can think of something that is figuratively more powerful than an M16 Rifle: the dictionary.
Tricky homonyms aside, the brilliance of language is that individual words each have nuanced, particularized meanings. If the pen is mightier than the sword, and if the dictionary is more powerful than the M16, then the thesaurus is on par with the Nerf Gun. Just because two words have meanings that areĀ similarĀ does not mean that such words should be used interchangeably. āVileā does not literally mean ārepugnant.ā āPollyannaishādoes not literally mean āoptimistic.ā And āracismā does not literally mean āprejudice.ā
There are a lot of different dictionaries to choose from. This is not high school, so letās not use Websterās. And this is also not college, so letās not pull out the Oxford English Dictionary. Instead, letās use Dictionary dot comāthe preferred online dictionary stemming from Google searches due presumably to clever search engine optimization and savvy meta data usage.
āPrejudiceā is defined as āanĀ unfavorableĀ opinionĀ orĀ feelingĀ formedĀ beforehandĀ orĀ withoutĀ knowledge,Ā thought,Ā orĀ reason.ā
āRacism,ā meanwhile, is defined as āa belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually by involving the idea that oneās race is superior and has the right to rule others.ā
If you want to argue that racism and prejudice mean different things to different people, fine. Thatās totally fair. But when alleging that someone is a racistāaĀ de factoĀ and proverbial scarlet letter in 21st century Americaāyou simply cannot be playing games with definitions. There has to be some semblance of standardization, and what better source of standardized terms than the top results of a simple Google search?
Mark Cuban admitted to having prejudices that he acknowledged āarenāt right.ā He then previously stated that he would cross the street when encountered by either a black kid in a hoodie late at night or a bald white guy with tattoos all over his face and body. What Cuban was going for when making those statements is rather obvious: the unfortunate realities of functional prejudice in modern society, and how to institute social change moving forward.
Lately, itās 72 degrees in Dallas at nightānot necessarily the weather where one would be needing a hood covering oneās head. If, in the middle of the night, Cuban saw a black person wearing a hood walking toward him, he would acknowledge his prejudice but still cross the street. Better safe than sorry. Or mitigating risk for the business consultancy crowd.

The Smoking Cuban
Similarly, Cuban is walking down that same street. He sees a walking caricature of a Skin Head. Bald. Face tattoos. A tatted up body. Why risk it? Cuban is crossing that street to supposed safety.
In the above hypotheticals, the hooded black kid in the middle of the night might just enjoy wearing the hood of his sweatshirt. He might be walking to his grandmotherās house. But he also might be vaguely up to no good. Choosing to act on the former despite the possibility of the latter is a calculated decision fueled by prejudiceāby definition an unfavorable opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge. It is not, however,Ā racismāby definition some semblance of racial superiority.
The same can be said for the aforementioned Skin Head hypothetical. The bald white guy with tattoos everywhere might just be a prominent tattoo artist walking to his studio. Or it might be Chris āBirdmanā Andersen in twenty years if he happens to lose his hair or opt for a change in style. But it also might be a dangerous member of society Ā a normal person would rationally want to stay away from.
Donald Sterling is a racist because he seems to genuinely believe in a totemic racial hierarchy. Mark Cuban is prejudiced because he candidly acknowledges making judgments about stereotypical members of various races without evidence.
Donald Sterling is awful because he refuses to acknowledge or even apologize for his racist conduct. Mark Cuban, however, is commendable because he publicly acknowledged the unfortunate realities of his own personal prejudices and actively opines for change.
It is 2014, and our cell phones double as mobile dictionaries. Letās stop confusing these two very different concepts.