In news that was equally sad but not surprising, WNBA phenom Caitlin Clark has finally bent the knee to the race grifters after facing years of criticism for supposedly having "white privilege." As RedState reported, Clark made the comments during an interview with TIME, which named her "athlete of the year." 

SEE: WNBA Sensation Credits Her Success to 'White Privilege' 

In them, she claims, "As a white person, there is privilege," while dismissing the idea that she's earned the accolades she's received. Clark then goes on to say the "league has kind of been built" on black women, noting that their elevation is "a beautiful thing."

“I want to say I’ve earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege,” she is quoted in the Time writeup. “A lot of those players in the league that have been really good have been Black players. This league has kind of been built on them."

"The more we can appreciate that, highlight that, talk about that, and then continue to have brands and companies invest in those players that have made this league incredible, I think it’s very important," she added. "I have to continue to try to change that. The more we can elevate Black women, that’s going to be a beautiful thing.”

On the one hand, I get it. She plays in a league that is 70 percent black and has faced immense pressure from major voices over the last year. Some of it has even devolved into what I would describe as outright racism.

SEE: The WNBA Decides to Set Itself on Fire

With that said, isn't the fact that the league is 70 percent black evidence there is no "white privilege" involved in succeeding in it? The WNBA does not and has never discriminated against black players. On the contrary, it has always gone out of its way to highlight them. So where exactly does the "privilege" come in? 

Was it when Clark was snubbed from the Olympics despite clearly being better than several players who were awarded spots? Was it when she was flagrantly fouled more than any other player in the league? Was it when she walked into a failing league that no one watched? Was it when the left-wing sports refused to defend her and instead stoked divisions? Was it when WNBA Hall-of-Famer Sheryl Swoopes started a racist crusade against her? 

By the way, as expected, Swoopes didn't let up despite Clark's olive branch, suggesting there were more deserving candidates. 

You also can't discuss the WNBA without discussing the financial realities behind it. The WNBA has never turned a profit. Instead, it has subsisted on annual injections of welfare from the NBA. So what exactly was "built" when Clark got there? 

That's not to dismiss the other good players in the league because they exist, but Clark did not walk into a bastion of success only to feed off her supposed privilege. If anything, the opposite is true. The rest of the league is enjoying the privilege of having her join them, and that's evidenced by the increased revenue the WNBA garnered, including a new television deal, during the 2024 season.

Overall, I find the idea that Clark succeeded because of "white privilege" to be a ludicrous contention. If anything, she walked into a situation that was stacked against her, and she overcame it. Clark is the reason the WNBA's viewership exploded in 2024. She is the reason some teams can finally charter flights and their games are being shown on major networks. Clark's presence is even largely responsible for increases in salaries for other players. You'd think they'd worry less about her "privilege," and be more thankful.

Still, Clark's attempt at humility would be laudable if it didn't feed directly into the racial grievance industry that has become so corrosive to society. There's nothing wrong with deferring to others who have come before you, but there was a way to say that without going the "white privilege" route. By doing that, as Swoopes' commentary linked above shows, she's only inviting more criticism. You can never be woke enough, and unfortunately, it appears Clark will have to learn that the hard way.