It ain’t easy being green. And sometimes, it ain’t easy being Tiger Woods.

In the arena, Woods kicked off his 2008 season with high expectations, and began by winning the Buick Invitational. People have been writing and talking about him winning a single season Grand Slam and capturing all four majors. If he doesn’t, some will consider it a disappointment.

Now, just think about that for a moment.

There have been only five players in the long and storied history of the game to win all four professional majors in a career. The golfing community it talking about Woods accomplishing the feat in one calendar, not just talking but anticipating.

That is what you call high expectations. Woods understands it, accepts it, and even embraces it. He has done things no other golfer has done, he aspires to do more of them.

What he doesn’t understand, what is sometimes hard for anyone to understand, is the expectations some people put on him outside the arena.

“I am socially active every day of my life, and that’s with my foundation, what I try to do with kids,” Woods said. “We bust our tails to try and give as many kids the opportunity to better their lives and go to college and teach them how to lead and give back. That's my directive; that's my focus.”

That’s not good enough for some people. They want much more.

When Kelly Tilghman spontaneously responded to a Nick Faldo observation about Woods with a stunningly poor choice of metaphors, the “lynch him in the back alley” comment caused outrage in some corners.

Tilghman regretted the moment, both to the public and to Woods. That wasn’t enough for the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton, who demanded Tilghman be fired. Golf Channel compromised by suspending the anchor for two weeks.

Keep in mind, Tilghman’s mistake was made live, without malice or forethought, without a net. Unlike Sharpton or those most offended, Woods knows Tilghman, has worked with her in the past, enjoys a friendly relationship. He accepted her apology and called it a “non-issue.”  

That wasn’t good enough for some people. They feel Woods, who is of multi-racial descent, should have put his black skin ahead of his personal association. They believe Woods should have made a major issue of Tilghman’s mistake and the trend of racial insensitivity it represents.

“I know there are people who want me to be a champion of all causes,” Woods said. “And I just can’t do that. This is not the first time this has happened.”

A week later, Golfweek magazine, attempting to demonstrate the gravity of the issue, trying to capture the powerfully provocative image that “lynch” represents, made a disastrous choice to put an ominous-looking noose on its cover.

Again, there was outrage in the black community. While many people have to sign off on a magazine cover before it hits a newsstand, the axe fell on editor Dave Seanor. Rev. Sharpton barely had a chance to get to the microphone.

“As I said earlier, (Kelly) has been a great friend over the years, and everyone makes mistakes, and she certainly regrets what she said and what happened,” Woods said. “The Golfweek article, obviously the cover itself, just perpetuated it. It was over and handled between us, and we had moved on from it. But unfortunately Golfweek did what they did, and from there it created more of a firestorm.”

Who is to say what is offensive to a segment of society, unless they are a member of that society? Who is to say what image is hurtful, what is inappropriate? But when does outrage slide from objective to subjective? What should be offensive to Woods and what should be acceptable?  

Last Sunday, the Miami Herald’s syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. tackled the Tilghman topic. Pitts, who is black, took Woods to task for being “distressingly obtuse on issues of race in particular and human rights in general.”

The commentary was made in a serious vain, unlike Tilghman’s attempt at humor. Like Golfweek, Pitts’ product was one he had time to contemplate, proof read and if necessary, reconsider. In the piece, the editorialist questioned Woods’ lack of indignation by writing: “One has to wonder what it would take to get a rise out of this guy: burning crosses on his front lawn?”

So, how should Woods react to <i>that</i> image?

This is not to call out Pitts, a craftsman who has a Pulitzer Prize on his resume. This is not to debate his stance. But the question bears asking, and not in a contentious manner. The ambiguity seems unmistakable, begging for clarity.

Should Woods make an issue of the term “lynching,” awkwardly muttered and subsequently repented by a close friend? Or should he make an issue of “burning crosses on his lawn,” suggested by someone he doesn’t know as a means of getting him stirred up?

Why should one image be offensive and outrageous while the other is not? If Woods or anyone else should be insulted and offended by Tilghman, or Golfweek, why shouldn’t there be a fury over the picture Pitts conjured up?

I know this white guy was equally taken back by all of it — Tilghman’s monologue, Golfweek’s cover and Pitts’ column. Yet the last item caused no national outcry, no Sharpton sound bit, no call for Woods to come to arms.

Why the mixed signals? Does “burning crosses on his front lawn” not register on the disturbing image scale. Would Golfweek be good to go with that cover? Is it only possible for a white commentator to reference something racially offensive to a black person?

In this instance, for a segment of the population, the double standard begs clarification. In the battle to break down racial and social barriers, that dialogue should be pursued.

Apparently, Woods is being asked to be selective about letting his black flag fly. Apparently, Woods is being told be “less obtuse about race in particular and human rights in general” only when it concerns messengers that are not black. Is that the crux of this?

For Tiger Woods, understanding expectations on the golf course are easy. It’s a little more difficult to understand the expectations off the course.