Opinion: The Guardian on the WNBA and “White Privilege”

By Easton Martin | August 11, 2026

A recent Guardian piece on WNBA player DiJonai Carrington’s “white privilege” comment by Etan Thomas is a glaring example of forcing a narrative just to manufacture controversy. The author is entirely tone deaf, building an indefensible argument around a recent on court incident.

He spends the bulk of his article arguing that Indiana Fever player Sophie Cunningham is rewarded with endorsement deals and the title of an enforcer for committing hard fouls, while Black players like Carrington are treated as dangerous threats for doing the exact same thing. Thomas complains about commentators defending Cunningham and Clark, and he even points to a Florida politician threatening assault charges over a foul, claiming this supposed media double standard is proof of a systemic racial bias.

To understand how ridiculous this article is, you have to look at where the “white privilege” label actually came from. After Chicago Sky guard DiJonai Carrington committed a hard foul on Sophie Cunningham and was rightfully ejected, she immediately jumped on social media to post those two words to deflect from her own actions.

Rather than calling out Carrington for the deflection, the author defends her using the most pathetic tactic imaginable. He opens his piece by claiming that the phrase “white privilege” triggers white people in America. That is just silly bait. Saying “black privilege” would get a rise out of black people too, and applying a baseless privilege label to literally any race would get a reaction. That is especially true when the concept itself is an inherently silly idea.

This is just one of those silly tactics where liberals will try to use terms coined by conservatives as derogatory towards liberals, like being “triggered,” as if they can be flipped around the other way. Let us set the record straight. No one is “triggered”. We are not flipping out and looting cities just because of a word, we are just critiquing the usage of the phrase because people have made it a completely silly category used to avoid discussing actual facts.

The facts on the basketball court completely dismantle the author’s premise. Cunningham gets praised because she stepped up to protect Caitlin Clark when referees absolutely would not call fouls on opponents who were unfairly targeting her. Clark was taking physical abuse game after game while the officials ignored it. When a player steps into the breach to defend her teammate from unchecked physical contact, she is doing her job.

The fact that Cunningham has not been persecuted or labeled a thug for protecting her teammate is not evidence of white privilege. It is evidence that basketball fans recognize and respect loyalty. You don’t get called a thug for standing up to opponents who are unfairly targeting your star player, why would you?

I am not sure how anyone at The Guardian let this slop take through to publication. Suggesting that Cunningham is shielded by her race, rather being commended for her obvious willingness to defend a teammate taking unfair abuse, is genuinely the worst take possible. The publication should be deeply embarrassed for running a piece that relies on cheap bait like this.