Michael Vick: what do you think?

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

As you all know, I’m not a big sports nut so Racialicious often lacks a bit when it comes to discussing the intersection of sports and race. (Luke Lee, where are you? )

But I did read a couple interesting items today about Michael Vick, the NFL player who is accused of running a dog-fighting operation on his property.

First, a representative of the NAACP is asking for Michael Vick to get a second chance:

R.L. White, president of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said his organization does not condone dogfighting or any other illegal activity, but he told reporters that Vick should be given a chance to redeem himself.

“In some instances, I believe Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he would’ve killed a human being,” White said. “The way he is being persecuted, he wouldn’t have been persecuted that much had he killed somebody.”

Second, Jessica at Feministing points out that animal rights seem to be trumping women’s rights when it comes to violence perpetuated by athletes:

A big thanks goes to sports columnists Rick Morrissey and Barry Rozner for pointing out what feminists have been: That the Michael Vick case has made it seem that the American public is more outraged over violence against dogs than they are over violence against women.

So what do you think of the Michael Vick situation? Is the outrage justified? Is he being targeted because he’s black? Do Americans really care more about dogs than women? Should Vick get another shot at the NFL?