Tiger Woods has spoken.

What he said, however, wasn’t much more than what he got criticized for when this entire Kelly Tilghman soap opera began a couple of weeks ago.

On Wednesday at the Buick Open, Woods reiterated that he had talked to Tilghman, the besieged Golf Channel analyst; discussed “for a little bit,” her now-infamous “lynch” comment; accepted her apology and said, “She’s been a great friend over the years, and everyone makes mistakes.”

I’m sure what Woods said won’t satisfy many of those who wondered why he hadn’t publicly chastised Tilghman or those who charge that his stance somehow shows his true color, or lack of color.

Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown, who is known for his active participation in working to keep kids out of gangs, said on ESPN Thursday that Woods had a responsibility to speak out on things as an African-American.

“He should have come out right away,” Brown said on “ESPN First Take.” “Instead, he waited until it was politically correct (to comment). The word ‘lynch’ … there is no redeeming part of it.”

If you believe Woods’ agent, Mark Steinberg, is authorized to speak for him, and given Woods’ tight control of his inner circle, the golfer did speak right away.

Through a statement released by Steinberg, Woods said that he accepted Tilghman’s apology and that it was a “non-issue.”

You see, that’s the thing.

It was never about Woods’ saying nothing or waiting for the right time.

It’s about Woods’ not saying what certain people wanted to hear him say.

Woods didn’t call it a “non-issue” during his news conference at the Buick, but he certainly didn’t join the Rev. Al Sharpton in calling for Tilghman’s job.

He didn’t rabble-rouse about Tilghman or Golfweek magazine displaying a noose on its cover in a story about Tilghman.

And that is a problem for those who want him to use his platform as a bully pulpit. It’s the same thing Michael Jordan faced when he was accused of never taking a stance on political or social issues.

“I know there are people who want me to be a champion of all causes,” Woods told reporters, “and I just can’t do that.”

So what’s wrong with that?

Where is it written that Tiger Woods, or anybody else, for that matter, must tackle any issue or controversy that he doesn’t want to?

We like to throw around the phrase “freedom of speech” so much that we sometimes forget that implicit in that constitutional guarantee is the freedom not to speak.

Certainly, there can be consequences for taking that stance, just as there can be consequences for exercising free speech.

For Woods, it often manifests in the notion that he tries to distance himself from the African-American side of his heritage.

I think that is regrettable.

I think the claims against Woods aren’t because he isn’t socially active. Frankly, unless you are in Woods’ inner circle, you have no real idea what he thinks about his heritage.

Woods comes under fire because he is not “socially vocal.”

Well, everyone isn’t cut out to play a role like Brown, Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Some people, no matter what pedestal they have been placed on, have no desire to speak out on issues concerning race, religion, politics or any other hot-button topic in our society.

But that hardly means they don’t care or are trying to shun their heritage.