Sam Kerr’s court case proves reverse racism doesn’t exist - Alice Soper

Chelsea's Australian striker Sam Kerr at Kingston Crown Court in south London. Photo / AFP

THREE KEY FACTS

• Chelsea star Sam Kerr has been cleared of racial harassment of a police officer.
• Kerr called a British police officer “stupid and white” after an incident with a taxi driver.
• Kerr denied using “whiteness as an insult”.

Two years later and we finally have a verdict in the Sam Kerr court case.

All this time to come to the only conclusion this was ever going to reach, given the definition of the word at the centre of the complaint. Racism is not simply prejudice, therefore reverse racism does not exist. As Reni Eddo-Lodge, author of Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, articulates it, racism is prejudice plus power.

This whole case from beginning to end underlined this definition.

It may be uncomfortable for my fellow white people to come to terms with this reality but consider in the first instance why we need to include a modifier. Why do we call it reverse racism and not simply racism when someone who is not white is prejudiced toward you? We know, even in claiming the offence, that our experience is different. This is because it is limited to an individual interaction rather than a systemic imbalance.

This imbalance was demonstrated in Kerr’s case. Despite her own individual status, Kerr was still rendered powerless in her fateful interaction with the police officer. Her comments, however ill-advised or prejudiced, were not backed up by a system of power. As she testified in her case, it was her experience of that distinct lack of power in the situation which she claims contributed to her outburst.

It’s not just a feeling, the Metropolitan Police have previously been found to be institutionally racist in the inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

This whole situation is a world away from the response to other instances of racism in sport. More egregious comments have commonly resulted in players being stood down for a handful of matches. I simply cannot recall another time an athlete has ended up in court for a comment. Sure this may be because these other instances have occurred within the confines of a sporting match but even situations involving arguably worse behaviour have only resulted in a slap of the wrist.

Fists, not words, have flown and charges haven’t made their way to court. Athletes have been found guilty of sexual assault or rape and have still been afforded the chance to compete. Last year, a convicted child rapist represented his country at the Olympics.

Closer to home, a judge discharged without conviction and afforded permanent name suppression to an athlete who admitted sex offences with a minor. In both these cases, the impact of their athletic performance was weighed against the harm they caused their victims.

If a male athlete is tried and found not guilty, we are expected to welcome him back immediately with open arms. Overlook any of the evidence, any admission of harm laid out at trial to cheer him on. Meanwhile, before a conclusion was reached in Kerr’s case, questions were already being put to the Matildas head coach about her suitability to both play and captain Australia.

The case therefore raises questions not just of racism but also of sexism in its treatment. The sports machine did not appear to kick in to protect Australia’s top goal-scorer as it does its favourite sons.

Sam Kerr’s behaviour that fateful night wasn’t good. Verbally abusing a police officer is never going to put you on the right side of the law. As with all things though, this case isn’t black and white. It involved the intersections of identity, what privileges they afford us and the related power dynamics at play.

The verdict however is clear, reverse racism doesn’t exist.