Jemele Hill Issues Response To Lou Holtz/Hitler Controversy

Hill Focusing Only On Her Job, Not Getting Involved In Others

ESPN.com's Jemele Hill, who in June was suspended from the net for one week after comparing the Celtics to Adolf Hitler in a column, responded on her personal blog about the controversy surrounding ESPN's decision not to suspend college football analyst for comparing Univ. of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez to Hitler last week. Hill wrote, "My initial answer is a story, or rather, a moment. A couple of years ago ... I sat in on a session taught by one of my favorite columnists and people, the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins. A student asked her if she ever got upset when other writers were rewarded -- particularly those writers who weren't as good. And Sally said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that she always prided herself on keeping her eyes on her own career. I never forgot that. That's my answer. That's how I feel" (JEMELEHILL.com, 10/21).

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? In Chicago, Richard Roeper writes of the difference in punishments for Hill and Holtz, "There's a different between a journalist who has time to write and edit and think about a column, and an analyst speaking off the cuff." Holtz made an "ill-advised reference, and he has apologized for it. That should suffice" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 10/22). But FANHOUSE's Will Brinson writes, "Both of them made ... a stupid public mistake; only the medium is different. So, personally, I fail to see why Lou is going to be on [TV] again this Saturday" (FANHOUSE.com, 10/22). AWFUL ANNOUNCING's Brian Powell wrote, "No matter how you look at it, the overwhelming sentiment is that punishment for a crime was different for a young black woman, than an old white man" (AWFULANNOUNCING.com, 10/21).