Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
There is a specific kind of joy that moves through a room — or a group chat, or a Twitter feed — when a Black man wins something big. You know that feeling. That exhale. That yes. The kind of celebration that isn’t just about one person but feels, for a moment, like a collective exhale for everyone who has ever been overlooked, underestimated, or told — explicitly or quietly — that they were not quite enough.
Michael B. Jordan winning the Academy Award was one of those moments.
And then, almost immediately, the yeah, buts started.
Yeah, but Timothée Chalamet made those comments. Yeah, but the Academy was trying to apologize for what happened at the BAFTAs. Yeah, but was it really his best performance, or was the field just weak?
You’ve heard some version of this. Maybe you’ve said some version of this. I’m not here to judge anyone for it — I’ve been in enough conversations where the instinct to contextualize feels like the responsible, critically-minded thing to do. We’ve been burned before. We’ve watched our people get passed over, watched mediocrity in a different skin color collect awards our legends deserved, watched Black excellence get nominated as a courtesy and lose as a custom. So the skepticism is not irrational. It has a history. It has receipts.
But here is what I need us to sit with today: there is a profound difference between racial consciousness and reflexive doubt — and one of them is quietly doing damage we don’t talk about enough.
Because when we spend more energy interrogating Michael B. Jordan’s Oscar than celebrating it, when we rush to find the asterisk before we’ve even let the confetti settle, we are not protecting Black excellence. We are, whether we mean to or not, diminishing it. We are doing, with our own hands, what we have long accused others of doing to us.
That is the conversation we need to have. Not about Timothée Chalamet. Not about the BAFTA incident. About us. About what we choose to do with a win — and what that choice reveals about what we actually believe our people are capable of.
The Asterisk Is Not Armor. It’s a Wound.
Let me tell you something about asterisks.
In baseball, an asterisk is what you put next to a record when you believe it was achieved under suspect conditions. Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs. Asterisk. Roger Maris broke Ruth’s record in a 162-game season instead of 154. Asterisk. The number exists — but the asterisk is there to make sure you don’t fully believe in it. To remind you: this win comes with conditions.
Now ask yourself — who taught us to put asterisks next to Black wins?
Because we didn’t invent that. That skepticism, that instinct to find the structural explanation before we allow ourselves the simple pleasure of celebration — that is a learned behavior. It was taught to us, slowly, over generations, by a culture that has historically found a way to qualify, dismiss, or reframe Black achievement at every turn. Halle Berry wins — was it a pity vote? Was the Academy trying to prove something? Denzel wins for Training Day — was that really his best work, or was it a belated apology for not giving it to him for Malcolm X? Now Michael B. Jordan wins — was it the Chalamet controversy? Was it guilt money from the BAFTA fallout?
Do you see the pattern?
The questions don’t start with the work. They start with the suspicion. And once that suspicion takes root, the work becomes almost irrelevant — because now the win exists in the shadow of a question mark rather than in the light of what was actually accomplished.
Here is what I want to offer — gently, but directly: when we are the ones placing that asterisk, we are not being critically rigorous. We are being conditioned.
Think about what it actually took for Michael B. Jordan to be standing in that room. This is not a man who arrived. This is a man who built — brick by brick, role by role, over two decades of craft. He was a kid on The Wire who most people didn’t know to watch. He was the heart of Friday Night Lights in a role that asked him to be vulnerable in ways that young Black men are rarely given permission to be on screen. He was Killmonger — and listen, we can argue about a lot of things, but we cannot argue that Erik Killmonger was not one of the most fully realized, emotionally complex antagonists in recent cinema history. That was him. That was his work.
And then this film — playing not one, not two, but three distinct characters, each with their own weight, their own walk, their own way of occupying the world. Seamlessly. Without vanity. With the kind of commitment that makes you forget you’re watching a performance and starts making you feel like you’re witnessing a life.
That does not happen because someone else made a controversial comment in an interview.
That happens because a man showed up, day after day, and did the work.
Now — I want to be honest with you, because this editorial is not going to be a simple pep talk. I personally was not certain he was the most obvious choice in the category. I thought there were other strong performances. Reasonable people can disagree about these things; that’s what makes the conversation interesting. But here is the critical distinction: disagreeing with the outcome is not the same as delegitimizing it. You can think someone else deserved it and still honor what the winner brought. You can hold both of those things without needing to reach for an external explanation to make your position feel validated.
What we cannot keep doing — what I am asking us to examine today — is this habit of reaching for the asterisk the moment a Black person wins something significant, as if excellence alone is never quite enough of an explanation. As if there must always be another reason. As if we, somewhere deep down, have not yet fully given ourselves permission to simply believe that one of ours was the best person in the room.
Because here is what that habit costs us — beyond this one moment, beyond this one Oscar, beyond Michael B. Jordan’s name.
It costs us our credibility as critics. If we cry conspiracy when the evidence is thin, we have less standing when the conspiracy is real — and sometimes, in Hollywood, it absolutely is. Saving our sharpest critique for the moments that actually warrant it is not complacency. It is precision. And precision is what gives critique its power.
And it costs us something more personal than that. It costs us the experience of joy — full, uncomplicated, collective joy — in a world that gives us precious few legitimate opportunities to have it.
A Black man stood in one of the most-watched rooms in the world. They called his name. He walked to that stage having spent years earning the right to be there.
Let him have it.
Let us have it.
The asterisk can wait. Actually, this time, it doesn’t need to come at all.
