The WNBA doesn't always get attention for the right reasons. In fact, these days, it's increasingly for the wrong ones.
Perhaps no other WNBA incident in recent months has generated as much attention as DiJonai Carrington's, shall we say, aggressive foul on Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham.
Carrington clotheslined Cunningham, leaving her with a bloody mouth. The foul was upgraded to a flagrant 2, resulting in Carrington's immediate ejection.
That was bad enough, especially considering it came against Cunningham, who's become public enemy number one in the WNBA for saying that males shouldn't compete in women's sports. But Carrington made it worse when she posted "White privilege" on social media after the game, then tagged the Indiana Fever.
Most took that to mean that Carrington was implying that she was ejected because her foul came against a White player. Essentially, that she was only assessed a harsher foul because of her race, and obviously, Cunningham's.
Despite the immediate backlash to Carrington's post, the WNBA has remained essentially silent about it. Though Carrington herself addressed it by... referring to her educational background?
"I’ve never once claimed that the assessment of the foul was White privilege (that was your assumption)," she posted on X, in reply to Emmanuel Acho. "Try exercising your critical thinking skills, I know you studied psych.
"Furthermore, I’m the LAST thing from ignorant or asinine when it comes to speaking on 'White privilege,' do ya research on that one. I actually went to school, one of the top universities might I add, to educate myself on this exact subject," Carrington added. "I would never use that term as a rhetorical weapon knowing the historical and social weight it holds without having the proper evidence to substantiate it."
DIJONAI CARRINGTON RESPONDS TO 'WHITE PRIVILEGE' POST, BUT LEAVES MEANING OF IT STILL UNCLEAR
As of late Wednesday evening, she has not yet provided the "proper evidence" to substantiate her claims. Nor is it clear what she meant by "White privilege" in this instance, if it wasn't referring to the ejection resulting from the foul.
Well, it's not clear to us mere mortals. But it is apparently clear to sports analyst Jemele Hill.
Hill posted on X Monday afternoon, also in response to Acho's criticism of Carrington, that it was always "pretty clear" to her that Carrington "wasn't talking about the foul."
Many have responded to Hill in the two days since and asked, since it was so clear, what Carrington had meant by White privilege, if it wasn't the foul. Acho himself asked. In fact, OutKick also reached out to Hill directly for an explanation. Since it was "pretty clear" what Carrington meant, could she tell the rest of us, so we can understand?
Stunningly, there's been no response.
Well, not entirely. Hill did respond to one post on X by again repeating that she knows what Carrington meant, then not saying what Carrington meant.
"I knew exactly what she meant, especially since Sophie Cunningham wasn’t assessed a technical for her reaction when other players have been," she posted.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
There are a few problems with this, however. Carrington said that the foul wasn't the reason for her post. Yet, if she was upset about Cunningham not getting a technical, that would also be... associated with the foul. Hill's interpretation, too, seems to be also associated with the foul, somehow, someway, since her only comment on it was connecting it to Cunningham.
The other problem is that the referees addressed that exact question after the game. Official Maj Forsberg was asked by pool reporters why they didn't give Cunningham a technical, and she responded, "After Cunningham was flagrantly fouled, we deemed her reaction to the severity of the contact to be acceptable."
That makes sense. Cunningham was hit so hard she was bleeding from the mouth. Any competitive athlete would react with some level of anger and frustration after contact like that. Is the implication then that it's "White privilege" to not get a technical in that situation? Because if that's the case, why not just say that, as inaccurate as it is? Not to mention that Carrington would almost certainly have reacted the same way, had the roles been reversed, and she'd be justified in doing so.
A quick look at the WNBA's technical foul leaders also highlights just how ridiculous that claim would be. Caitlin Clark is tied, funnily enough, with Angel Reese atop the league with seven technical fouls apiece. Clark actually received an eighth after accidentally bumping into an official, but the league later rescinded it. Cunningham has three technical fouls this season, while Carrington has just one.
Is it the case here that refs don't give out technicals to White players on the Indiana Fever? Because that's obviously not true, and it doesn't take a Stanford education to look that up.
Whatever she supposedly meant remains a mystery. One that apparently Jemele Hill could solve for us, if she were only willing to do so. For some mysterious reason, she isn't.
