Within a week's span, another ugly expose of social and racial ignorance permeated national headlines, this time coming from the vaunted halls of the National Basketball Association, an organization that has prided itself in diversity and global outreach. That NBA commissioner Adam Silver's hands were forced, both internally and publicly, should be an assertion that is irrefutable. No business enterprise with ambitious international aspirations can survive the cancer of an unrepentant brute like Los Angeles Clippers' owner, Donald Sterling, officially standing as one of its preeminent representatives.
There are many irrefutables in this recent scandal, chief among them that Mr. Sterling's remarks concerning the African-American community is reprehensible. However, the mere existence of overwhelming evidence of an egregious character flaw should not serve as a precedent for the unprecedented. By roundly denouncing Mr. Sterling and by attempting to forcibly remove him from his legally owned asset, the NBA is embarking on a dangerous moral hazard by potentially allowing the eviction of property rights under grounds of evidence collected either illegally or unethically. This further raises the question of what is considered "reprehensible" behavior and provokes the ire of black protectionism at the expense of other protected minorities. Finally, the controversy underscores a hegemonic paradigm of "tolerated intolerance," or the subconscious propensity of many Americans to silently share or sympathize, to varying degrees, with the sentiments verbally expressed by Mr. Sterling. The universal denunciation heaped upon the embattled owner may in fact backfire, propping Sterling as a messiah for the propitiation of America's silent racial sinners, and thus redeeming large swathes of corrupt social infrastructure through the avoidance of a limelight now the exclusive domain of one blighted individual.
One of the biggest concerns regarding the NBA's proposed sanctions against Mr. Sterling is the forcible removal of an asset that he has legally acquired and owned for several decades. That the Clippers organization itself will lose sponsorship money, a relatively affluent fan base, and star players, contributors and employees is a given. The NBA has every right to prevent any individual from partaking in any function associated with the league and it has, to its credit, exercised those prerogatives in regards to Mr. Sterling. However, affecting the ownership of a franchise is an altogether different story : a deal is a deal, whether it involved a racist or not.
What's most troubling is that under normal circumstances, an owner of an asset cannot be forcibly removed from his ownership rights unless he has violated a law that nullifies those rights. Under the First Amendment, the right to property cannot be voided simply on the basis of ignorant speech. This is why Mr. Sterling was fined for housing discrimination in a prior federal case but was still allowed to keep the property in question.
The NBA is in a position where they are side-stepping the legal system by using evidence acquired surreptitiously (and most likely illegally) to first win the court of public approval, and then with the public's leverage, squeeze Mr. Sterling into an otherwise untenable situation, thus appropriating the initial desired result. Essentially, the NBA is rigging circumstances to force a response, and is no different than jury intimidation tactics.
Segueing into the broader discussion of accountability for personal behavior, is the NBA and other professional sports organizations now going to police the conduct, and even the speech, of its representatives? Furthermore, why does racism, specifically racism towards black people, receive such rancor when other acts of racism towards non-black minorities, or even the white majority, go unnoticed? In the NBA's case, former basketball star Magic Johnson cited that over 70% of its players are black : if that is accurate, there's a monetary incentive to appease the majority population. However, the monetary incentive argument becomes decidedly trick with Mr. Sterling's case, who has contributed annually to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and who has received a lifetime achievement award from the organization. Should not the entire breadth of a man's life be considered before denouncing him irreparably as a racist?
Use of ignorant or hateful speech that is non-racially exclusive would also be subject to penalty if the NBA were to maintain a pretense of consistency and transparency. Here again we dive into a slippery slope : professional sports is a man's game! Excuse the bluntness but in every level of competition there is gamesmanship which involves not only racially offensive rhetoric but sexually crude, misogynistic, and homophobic banter. The punishment of one kind of speech, but the tolerance of others sends a poor and mixed message : kids are taught that crudity is acceptable, but not towards blacks.
Finally, we must ask ourselves if the recent controversy is a one-off incident, or if this is merely the vulgar outburst of an underlying social problem. By and large, America pays lip service towards the virtues of diversity and racial tolerance, but in practice, the phenomenon known as white flight demonstrate a collective desire to separate oneself from the "others." This diverging tendency may be ameliorating, but cases of subtle discrimination that can affect the racial composition of particular neighborhoods still exist. A full frontal assault on Mr. Sterling's character may or may not bring about his repentance, but it surely detracts from the macro issue : racism still exists in America and has a far more lasting effect on regular, hard working folks who will never grace the cover of Sports Illustrated but will have to put food on the table nonetheless. Punishing Mr. Sterling beyond the harsh sanctions already levied provides the owner with a moral out, a victim of a tyrannical conglomerate hell-bent on exacting blood justice. The proper response would have been to allow Sterling the right to maintain his ownership rights. In that way, the free market could decide his fate and any consequence would have been a result of Sterling's lack of business and social acumen.
And while the black community may view the harsh punishment as a victory for tolerance, I see things a little differently. The rush to judgment has prevented all of us, regardless of race, color, or creed, an opportunity to look inwardly at ourselves and our own community. Instead of seeking ways to improve ourselves and thus, advance our competitiveness to solve problems in a productive manner, we are merely sated with the downfall of one individual.
Mr. Sterling has already chosen his lot in life. What about you?
There are many irrefutables in this recent scandal, chief among them that Mr. Sterling's remarks concerning the African-American community is reprehensible. However, the mere existence of overwhelming evidence of an egregious character flaw should not serve as a precedent for the unprecedented. By roundly denouncing Mr. Sterling and by attempting to forcibly remove him from his legally owned asset, the NBA is embarking on a dangerous moral hazard by potentially allowing the eviction of property rights under grounds of evidence collected either illegally or unethically. This further raises the question of what is considered "reprehensible" behavior and provokes the ire of black protectionism at the expense of other protected minorities. Finally, the controversy underscores a hegemonic paradigm of "tolerated intolerance," or the subconscious propensity of many Americans to silently share or sympathize, to varying degrees, with the sentiments verbally expressed by Mr. Sterling. The universal denunciation heaped upon the embattled owner may in fact backfire, propping Sterling as a messiah for the propitiation of America's silent racial sinners, and thus redeeming large swathes of corrupt social infrastructure through the avoidance of a limelight now the exclusive domain of one blighted individual.
One of the biggest concerns regarding the NBA's proposed sanctions against Mr. Sterling is the forcible removal of an asset that he has legally acquired and owned for several decades. That the Clippers organization itself will lose sponsorship money, a relatively affluent fan base, and star players, contributors and employees is a given. The NBA has every right to prevent any individual from partaking in any function associated with the league and it has, to its credit, exercised those prerogatives in regards to Mr. Sterling. However, affecting the ownership of a franchise is an altogether different story : a deal is a deal, whether it involved a racist or not.
What's most troubling is that under normal circumstances, an owner of an asset cannot be forcibly removed from his ownership rights unless he has violated a law that nullifies those rights. Under the First Amendment, the right to property cannot be voided simply on the basis of ignorant speech. This is why Mr. Sterling was fined for housing discrimination in a prior federal case but was still allowed to keep the property in question.
The NBA is in a position where they are side-stepping the legal system by using evidence acquired surreptitiously (and most likely illegally) to first win the court of public approval, and then with the public's leverage, squeeze Mr. Sterling into an otherwise untenable situation, thus appropriating the initial desired result. Essentially, the NBA is rigging circumstances to force a response, and is no different than jury intimidation tactics.
Segueing into the broader discussion of accountability for personal behavior, is the NBA and other professional sports organizations now going to police the conduct, and even the speech, of its representatives? Furthermore, why does racism, specifically racism towards black people, receive such rancor when other acts of racism towards non-black minorities, or even the white majority, go unnoticed? In the NBA's case, former basketball star Magic Johnson cited that over 70% of its players are black : if that is accurate, there's a monetary incentive to appease the majority population. However, the monetary incentive argument becomes decidedly trick with Mr. Sterling's case, who has contributed annually to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and who has received a lifetime achievement award from the organization. Should not the entire breadth of a man's life be considered before denouncing him irreparably as a racist?
Use of ignorant or hateful speech that is non-racially exclusive would also be subject to penalty if the NBA were to maintain a pretense of consistency and transparency. Here again we dive into a slippery slope : professional sports is a man's game! Excuse the bluntness but in every level of competition there is gamesmanship which involves not only racially offensive rhetoric but sexually crude, misogynistic, and homophobic banter. The punishment of one kind of speech, but the tolerance of others sends a poor and mixed message : kids are taught that crudity is acceptable, but not towards blacks.
Finally, we must ask ourselves if the recent controversy is a one-off incident, or if this is merely the vulgar outburst of an underlying social problem. By and large, America pays lip service towards the virtues of diversity and racial tolerance, but in practice, the phenomenon known as white flight demonstrate a collective desire to separate oneself from the "others." This diverging tendency may be ameliorating, but cases of subtle discrimination that can affect the racial composition of particular neighborhoods still exist. A full frontal assault on Mr. Sterling's character may or may not bring about his repentance, but it surely detracts from the macro issue : racism still exists in America and has a far more lasting effect on regular, hard working folks who will never grace the cover of Sports Illustrated but will have to put food on the table nonetheless. Punishing Mr. Sterling beyond the harsh sanctions already levied provides the owner with a moral out, a victim of a tyrannical conglomerate hell-bent on exacting blood justice. The proper response would have been to allow Sterling the right to maintain his ownership rights. In that way, the free market could decide his fate and any consequence would have been a result of Sterling's lack of business and social acumen.
And while the black community may view the harsh punishment as a victory for tolerance, I see things a little differently. The rush to judgment has prevented all of us, regardless of race, color, or creed, an opportunity to look inwardly at ourselves and our own community. Instead of seeking ways to improve ourselves and thus, advance our competitiveness to solve problems in a productive manner, we are merely sated with the downfall of one individual.
Mr. Sterling has already chosen his lot in life. What about you?
