Redistricting’s Achilles’ Heel: The NAACP’s Unorthodox Strategy to Protect Black Representation

The recent Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana’s congressional map has set off a gerrymandering frenzy in southern states, threatening decades of hard-won gains in minority representation. In response, the NAACP has launched an unorthodox campaign, “Out of Bounds,” targeting one of the region’s greatest weaknesses: its passion for college sports.

The NAACP is betting that the economic interests of state-funded universities can be used against them by urging Black athletes and fans to boycott these institutions. Derrick Johnson, the NAACP president, may not be entirely wrong in this assessment. Historically, the participation and dominance of Black athletes have been crucial to the success of college football and basketball programs.

However, as the financial landscape has shifted in recent years, top recruits can now make millions without entering professional leagues. The allure of playing for elite southern universities is no longer the only consideration. Schools like Alabama, Georgia, LSU, and Clemson – institutions at the forefront of redistricting efforts – are being targeted by the NAACP.

The campaign encourages athletes already attending these schools to transfer or pressure their institutions to oppose redistricting efforts. It also suggests that athletes consider attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and use their influence to advocate for collective bargaining rights and greater community engagement.

Critics argue that top recruits will simply choose other lucrative options, regardless of the boycott. They claim this approach is overly simplistic, ignoring the complexities of systemic racism and institutional power. However, the economic stakes involved suggest otherwise: the Southeastern Conference generates over $1 billion in revenue each year, largely due to the dominance of Black athletes on rosters.

If these recruits begin to go elsewhere, the consequences for southern universities would be severe – their bottom line would take a drastic hit. The NAACP’s gamble is that these schools’ win-at-all-costs mentality can be turned against them by highlighting the economic costs of gerrymandering.

State lawmakers may be persuaded to abandon their redistricting push if they realize the financial consequences of losing top recruits and revenue. However, success depends on the willingness of Black athletes to delay their own gratification for the greater good. Many top recruits have enough options that boycotting the South isn’t a significant sacrifice – schools in the Big Ten Conference offer attractive alternatives.

As Johnson acknowledged, “No one Black should be on a playing field of institutions that’s living off our labor and yet in states that are seeking to reinstitute a sharecropping reality.” The question is whether this unorthodox approach will yield the desired results or merely serve as a fleeting moment of resistance against an entrenched system.