Since when has the sports pages been the chronicler of the state of racism and sexism in the world?

For a month now it turns out, after Don Imus - that renowned sports journalist - lost his mind on both live radio and TV (if you're going to blow up - you might as well blow up BIG!) and uttered the three words "nappy-headed hos" that cost him his career… until someone like FoxNews hires him back of course.

Imus was vilified everywhere, nowhere more so than in the sports pages. Describing the woman's Rutgers basketball team that way, who had just lost in the finals of the Final Four, provided every ink stained sports wretch the opportunity to get off their chests exactly what they thought about the whole complicated mess.

For what it is worth, and it's not worth much so you should probably skip to the end, here's mine: Should a shock jock be fired for using the H-word?

No.

I believe the first time I ever heard the H-word was in the movie Sleepless in Seattle. Tom Hanks' character's kid - who was like 8 or something - used it. I don't remember the protests back then, but they must have been fierce!

Should a shock jock be fired for using the n-word? Not the N-word, the other lesser n-word that harkens back to the 40's and caused most folks when they heard about the Imus kafuffle to reach for a dictionary to look up what it meant.

No.

Imus, (who is actually older than he looks and he looks like he's dead), maybe used it as a kid, I don't know, but the last time I can recall hearing it anywhere was also in a film, Spike Lee's Malcolm X. Denzel Washington was playing the young Malcolm, who, in 1946 stopped straightening his "nappy" hair while in prison and converted to Islam. That movie came out 15 years ago. Not exactly common usage.

So, was Imus' three-word gaff much ado about nothing?

Again, no.

The bottom line on him is this: Old white guys (or young white guys, or old or young black guys for that matter) can never, and should never, make fun of young black students.

He got exactly what he deserved.

But what about the rest of us? Do we deserve what we are getting now?

Since Imus-ed-up, the sports pages (the sports pages!?!) have been crammed with story after story about racism, sexism and intolerance. The writers and talking heads are using the controversy to dominate their usual allotted space - for a month now - on matters other than sports.

Guy: "Hey, who won the game last night?"

Sports section reading guy: "Just a sec. I'm in the middle of a treatise in the sexual morays of the modern day NCAA athlete and the impact that has on the early childhood development and misogyny."

Guy: "Wow! Is there a point spread on that?"

Sports are supposed to be the great distracter. The place we go to escape from our ever present real lives. We watch it and read about it for entertainment purposes. True, on occasion it is inspiring, heroic, even thought provoking, but should the journalists who cover the world of sports ever be a source for some kind of moral compass?

I say no - and my reasons are simple.

First - other places already do that - and better. And finally, sports writers and journalists aren't trained in that kind of stuff.

What they are trained in - and what they should only attempt to do - is cover and promote their particular sports. Their job description is to understand the intricacies involved the relative skills of the players and to finally, and only when they really have to, interview the overly large sweaty humans who make the sport what it is and try to make them look and sound like they are actually interesting.

That's about it. Topics such as racism and sexism, and any other "ism" you can name should be left to the experts; philosophers, great thinkers, academics, Bill Cosby.

Sports journalists emphasize constantly that the athlete who succeeds most, exploits their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. They should perhaps read a little more what they write.

Here's the bottom line on this: To ask a sports talking head or a beat writer to get all journalistically philosophical on social issues would be like allowing a plumber to give prostate exams.

While the job descriptions are close - it's just not their specialty.

Cheers - Gavin McDougald - AKA Couch