The Oberlin Review

Liberal Stereotyping Undercuts Sportsmanship

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






A tennis court is 78 feet long. A block of blue space striped with white lines stretches between each player as we wage an intense, individual war. Pumping adrenaline and high stakes combined with a questionable line call can make things personal, causing us to label an opponent as “cheater,” or worse, “bitch.” Sometimes, in the heat of battle, we think only of our differences from the person on the other side of the net.

My differences with my opponent from Centre College revealed themselves off-court, after our singles match, when she pulled on a light blue t-shirt that read “TRUMP: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” in block letters colored with the American flag.

“Wow, look.” I tapped my dad’s arm and tried to subtly point at my opponent’s new layer of clothing, pulled over her “Colonel Tennis” sweats.

My mom noticed too and immediately shook her head, insisting, “You know she’s just doing that because she’s at Oberlin.” Oberlin’s leftist reputation caused my mom to immediately attribute the gesture to a desire to provoke. “It’s a middle finger to the liberals.”

Another parent commented, “It’s just disrespectful.”

My teammates showed similar disdain, and one ardently anti-Trump teammate met her eyes with a glare across the court.

Several moments later, the opponent snapped back, “I thought this was a safe space.” The liberal buzzword jokes continued, as we overheard another Centre player watching the number 6 singles match laughingly comment, “I can’t believe she won that point. I’m triggered. Where’s the trigger warning?”

78 feet. 24 meters. It’s really a negligible distance, especially because we often close the gap. We dash to the net to retrieve a drop shot. We exhale compliments like “great point.” We ask each other about the score, the format, the location of the third ball, and even slip in some small talk about last year’s season or the matches that lie ahead. Implicit in those conversations is the sense that the two of us have just shared a unique, hours-long mental and physical battle. That cultivates a sense of respect unlike any other.

I considered sitting down next to my former opponent and just opening a dialogue, like the ones we had shared on court. I had so many questions. What statement was she trying to make? Did she even support Trump? If so, why? What bothered her about safe spaces and trigger warnings? Would she have done the same thing if she had won? Why did she decide to wear that shirt, at Oberlin, over her uniform? Did her political identity supersede her team identity? Hadn’t Trump already won?

Instead, I said nothing. While teammates, parents, and friends labeled her “rude” and “deplorable,” I couldn’t help feeling uneasy as they employed the stereotype of the irrationally angry, rural white person from “Trump country.” As a West Virginian myself, I know that those cliches are misleading. But just because my opponent represented Centre College and showed support for our controversial president, those around me jumped to the conclusion that she was uninformed at best, spiteful and racist at worst.

At the same time, the Centre players sitting behind us in the bleachers likely harbored similar, converse thoughts. They probably believed Oberlin was a hub of reactionary liberals, a school that silences the other side. Maybe they jeered that we were “snowflakes,” too scared of confrontation and too politically correct to say anything about the shirt.

Such stereotyping, personal attacks, and pettiness keep us thinking only of what divides us. We drift ever further apart — picking neighborhoods, schools, social circles that surround us with those who reinforce our political beliefs. We continue to curate our social media feeds to serve as glorified echo chambers. We turn to the same media outlets and eschew all others. We wage wars over any and every policy area — immigration, gun laws, healthcare, foreign policy, the environment, the budget — and find no common ground. When it comes to politics, no one is willing to extend a hand and meet in the middle.

Sports are supposed to unite people. But that Saturday evening, we packed up our tennis bags with the same assumptions that we had carried in and returned to separate lives, separate sides.

78 feet felt further than ever.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Comments

4 Responses to “Liberal Stereotyping Undercuts Sportsmanship”

  1. Larry Tunison on March 11th, 2018 11:35 AM

    Well thought out. Valid and positive conclusion. Your account exemplifies the feelings of much of our country concerning Trump. We need to stop letting him control our emotions and behavior. A saying on a piece of clothing upset you enough to write your story and you have, probably, been speaking about it to others. If we continue to allow Trump to control us, we are loosing. We must must be in charge of ourselves and invest our time productively. Keep up the good work on the courts.

  2. Steven Kennedy on March 12th, 2018 3:15 PM

    A thoughtful and responsible piece. I wish the author had sat down next to the Trump supporter and asked about her views. Maybe she would have discovered that the Trump supporter believed in smaller government, lower taxes, border security and traditional morality, and that she didn’t come to her beliefs out of a disrespect for anyone, but simply a belief that conservative policies were a better solution to the the country’s problems than liberal policies. Maybe the Oberlin student would have respectfully disagreed, but maybe the two could have agreed to disagree, respecting that each’s views were formed from good faith and rational bases. That is how it is supposed to work in this country.

  3. Austin Kerr on March 13th, 2018 6:41 AM

    Excellent piece.

  4. Ummm on March 14th, 2018 5:55 PM

    Good for you.

    In general, people are more interested in tribalism than truth, and I think that generalisation extends cleanly across political divides.

    Good luck.

Please keep all comments respectful and relevant. The Review does not allow comments containing profanity, foul language, personal attacks, hate speech or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are only published at the discretion of a moderator.




Established 1874.