Credit: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images
I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent scandal surrounding LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Audio recordings between Sterling and his girlfriend show him to be a racist son of a gun who would prefer that his girlfriend not associate with black people.
People reacted strongly, with the Clippers demonstrating their disapproval during pre-game warmups for Sunday's playoff game. The NBA has reacted even more strongly, with a "lifetime ban" that would keep Sterling from having any association with the NBA or Clipper activity for what little is left of his old, decrepit lifetime. Additionally Sterling will be fined $2.5 million (the maximum allowable under NBA rules) and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has stated his intention to see the NBA Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers.
Things aren't looking too bright for Mr. Sterling, but has the NBA taken appropriate action? Has the league gone too far? While I definitely believe that Sterling should be punished, stripping him of the team that he has owned for 30+ years seems pretty severe to me. What other ways could the league punish Sterling?
18 comments:
As harsh as it may seem, I understand this punishment because the NBA needs to prove to the public that they are fully against any act of racism, so they need to make an example out of Sterling to make their point clear. I think that even a long term suspension would have caused an outrage because obviously racism is something people are trying to prevent. Another question I have is how this incident will affect the Clipper's fan base. Obviously every team has die-hard fans but there are plenty of people whose loyalties are not strong enough to get over an incident like this.
I believe that Sterling got what he deserved. The fine was the most possible and although it doesn't mean much to Sterling (He's super rich), it is more of a symbolic gesture. It shows that the league cares about its players. Nobody deserves to be talked about like that, so I think that it is just that the NBA went as far as possible. Also, it is not like Sterling just loses the team. He will be pressured to SELL the team for a big pile of money. He still can try to push off the sale and even sue. Unfortunately, Sterling will come out of this just as he went in: a rich and racist old man(He has also had numerous other racism related incidents). Overall, the NBA is better off without him. I suggest that you watch some of the discussions by the experts in between the playoff games because it is much more insightful than any other source I've seen.
I'd argue that it might be too much. He made these comments in private, and he had the decency to keep these views within a personal realm instead of saying these things in public. There are plenty of people who we would consider to be racist, sexist, or anything else, but we should be able to get along as long as they keep their views private, especially since even at Aragon we still work to perpetuate some racial stereotypes. I'll be honest, there are some views I hold that some people would be abhorred to know I believe in (and some of the backlash from the APUSH blog last year reflects that). As long as he keeps his views private and doesn't treat people differently in public, he should be more or less free to think what he does. He's been demonized, ridiculed, even berated by the president, for views he holds personally and privately. I'll admit that I'm personally a bit racist sometimes, but that certainly doesn't mean that the principal should openly castrate me in front of the school. We've overreacted to a view we find abhorrent that was expressed in private.
While such repercussions are surely strict and extreme, I think it is very important to set the precedent in society that racism of any form will not be tolerated, regardless of whether it's his own "personal beliefs" or not. Actually, some may argue that Sterling's punishment isn't harsh enough. $2.5 million dollars is a relatively minimal sum in comparison to the wealth Sterling has already accrued from his position in the NBA, not to mention the massive amount of money he will get from being able to sell his team.
How the NBA handles this situation sets the precedent for future cases dealing with racism. At first, I definitely felt sympathy for him, but this harsh punishment makes it clear that racism will not be tolerated in the NBA. Although for many of us $2.5 million dollars is an insane amount of money, Alexa does bring up a good point- that amount probably is a drop in the bucket for him, especially if he ends up having to sell his team. I'm glad that that fine will be donated to organizations promoting tolerance. I'm just surprised that he has just now been caught and punished for being a racist even though he's owned this team for over 30 years.
While I agree that the league president's actions were probably wise in terms of protecting the overall integrity of the NBA, I am inclined to agree with Nathan in that Mr. Sterling's criticism seems a little overblown given that his comments were made privately. The financial penalty imposed on Mr. Sterling in addition to his dismissal seems particularly questionable. As abhorrent as his views are, the imposition of a financial burden based on a personal (albeit racist) belief is against our most basic values.
To be clear, I don't at all support Mr. Sterling remaining affiliated with the NBA, but the amount of press coverage that this issue has received is entirely undue. Frankly, Mr. Sterling is a racist old man entirely unfit to operate in an organization as diverse as the NBA. But the response by the press and comments by public officials and politicians amount to nothing more than grandstanding. He's been banned and fined, and this episode doesn't deserve to be dignified by the attention of the press and public.
The NBA has taken appropriate action against Donald Sterling. The man is twisted and seems to not realize what year it is. The league has not gone to far, if anything they have not done enough. I say this because Sterling has had a reputation for racist comments and inappropriate actions. This is not the first time Sterling has gotten in trouble for discrimination.
2006: U.S. Dept. of Justice sued Sterling for housing discrimination. Allegedly, he said, “Black tenants smell and attract vermin.”
2009: Clippers executive (and one of the greatest NBA players in history) sued for employment discrimination based on age and race.
http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/ Read this if you are interested......
But anyways as much as I want more punishment to be thrown his way, the chances are slim to increase. In fact Donald Sterling is sueing the NBA based on the NBA constitution. The process of the case has been noted will take a very lengthy time, possibly two years to settle. But how much time does Sterling have? He's pretty old and has cancer.I no doubt believe that Donald Sterling should be stripped of his team.The financial penalty also is nothing compared to the billions of dollar he has as a part of the 1%.Donald Sterling signed a contract to the NBA, if he violated part of it he would get fined. And in the documents of the NBA constitution there a certain penalties for each rule broken. Think about how players get fined for wearing clothes they are not allowed to wear. When someone signs a contract, they have to face the penalties if they break it.
I think there has been a misinterpretation of the reason Mr. Sterling has been fined and prosecuted by the NBA. He is not being fined for "being a racist," but rather for violating the bylaws of the NBA. However, the bylaws are confidential, so it remains unclear whether or not the NBA has the legal grounds to terminate or oust Donald Sterling from ownership of the Clippers.
As some have mentioned, it does seem ridiculous that the NBA is just now taking action against Sterling when he has a history of documented bigotry and racism. What made this case different?
Well, we did. The fact that we are still talking about this and the fact that I am still getting notifications from ESPN about this on my phone are indications of how overblown this issue has come.
I feel very conflicted on this issue. On one hand, racism is reprehensible, and ought not to be tolerated. On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with Nathan in the distinction between private and public remarks. My issue with this is that Sterling is being punished for his beliefs, as Matt said. Perhaps racism is a belief that ought to be punished, but where is the line? What if Sterling said something prejudicial about women or about children or about blondes? Which beliefs are you allowed to have and which are you not? And who gets to decide this?
This is not to say that I don't think that we should work against racism. However, this punishment is a punishment, and doesn't convey much other than that people will be punished if they express racist beliefs around a recording device (forgive me if I am misinterpreting).
On a side note, but this is something that bothers me. It is completely unacceptable in most societal circles to say or write or post prejudicial remarks about different ethnic groups or genders or ethnicities. However, it is not only acceptable, but sometimes encouraged, to post disparaging comments about teenagers. For instance, I was trying to find book recommendations, and one of the websites I was looking at seemed remarkably anti-teenager for a site recommending books for adolescents. It followed up one recommendation of a rather long book with a comment to the effect of "not that any teenager will actually read this" (I had actually read the book in question.) This may seem like a complete digression, but the point is that it puzzles me what kind of "prejudice" we are allowed to have in society. I am not saying that it is the same to be a teenager as it is to be black or female or any other group that people are a part of. Teenagers are only teenagers for a short amount of time, for one. A lot of the disparagement is accurate, that is true. I am not advocating that we lower the drinking age or the driving age or the anything age. But that does not make the stereotypes always right or always accurate, nor does it make me any less annoyed when a website makes fun of my supposed reading preferences.
But I think that we need to stop focusing on being "anti-racism" or "anti-sexism" or "anti-homophobia" and just be "anti-prejudice." This is not so simple as to say that we are all the same. If all countries and cultures were the same, then why would anyone fly to Paris or go out for Greek food or have International Food Fairs? I think that it is too easy to say "we are not racist" but still judge people based upon other external factors: like grades or athletic ability or popularity or age. I am guilty of this too, but I am working on it. Let's just try to see people as individuals, individuals who are products of unique backgrounds and unique cultures, but who are also just themselves. We don't really need to be anti-anything, do we? Can't we just be pro-human?
I’m fully in support of the NBA’s decision here. Yes, these were private comments, but Sterling is a very public figure; the comments became so much more than that, and I think they were fairly treated as such. I don’t want to invoke any theories about moral relativism, but from a business standpoint, the NBA decision also reflects consumer wishes. Advertisers don’t want that kind of press and neither do the players. So even if the NBA really has no claim to decide whose beliefs are “right,” the consumer certainly can when he decides which team to support and where he wants to put his money.
A similar case happened in the late ‘90s with Marge Schott, the owner of the Cincinnati Reds. Schott was banned from managing the team because of pro-Nazi statements she made; as owner, she also sparked significant controversy for her views on African Americans, Jews, and Japanese. But while she treated many people terribly, it was said that she treated her dogs better than people — she allowed them to run freely on the Reds field and defecate on it.
The history of major league sports has been riddled with racism. It’s a symbolic gesture by the league in the same way that baseball players wear “42” on Jackie Robinson day. We can argue whether or not that kind of punishment is appropriate for the kind of moral indecency Sterling may or may not have displayed, but decisions like these are sometimes precisely what the sporting world needs.
I agree with you, Brandon, that Sterling is a public figure. I also agree that racism is a major problem in sports and in life, and I hardly want to minimize it by any form of moralizing.
I suppose, to be honest, that I see punishment not as something involved in morality, but as more of a practical thing. I agree with Skinner, the purpose of Punishment is to stop the action. Do you think that punishing Sterling diminishes racism? Perhaps I should see punishment as a sort of "just world" concept, that if someone does wrong they should be punished to right the balances of life. Perhaps I should, but I don't see much reason for punishment other than to prevent a behavior, or stop behavior in the future. I suppose that in this sense, Sterling's punishment meets my criterion because it is sending a powerful symbol against racism (as you said, Brandon).
I don't think, though, that we should dismiss all of the creations and associations of someone racist, sexist or anti-semitic. If we did, the world would sorely miss Wagner and Dostoevsky, even Shakespeare and Faulkner. However, I suppose that Sterling is not contributing anything to the world of value, other than mere ownership of a sports team, so his merits do not outweigh his sins. Unless there's something I'm missing. Has he contributed anything else?
I don't know enough about professional sports to really address all of the intricacies of this particular issue. I agree with Connor that "the NBA is better off without him." Maybe I am over-complicating the issue, but I worry that sometimes we make life too simple. Someone does something bad, we punish him. Another person does the same bad thing, we punish him too. Someone has a bad thought, we make an example out of him. This pattern seems worrisome. I don't think we can abandon morality or philosophy completely, even if I overuse it. It seems only fair that if we are condemning a man for his moral failings, that we at least consider the morality of our condemnation.
Like Brandon said, Sterling is a public figure, and as the owner of the Clippers, he was the face, or one of the many faces, of the Clippers and the NBA. Yeah, it would be ideal if we could completely eradicate prejudice and discrimination in the world, or if all prejudice/discrimination was fairly punished, but that's not the case. Sterling should have known better and should have been more cognizant. When you become a public figure, and in this case the owner and leader of a team, you are subject to this kind of scrutiny and limelight - it comes with the job. Sterling deserves to be stripped of his team. He obviously doesn't respect his players, or many of the other players on the NBA for that matter. As for whether his punishment was enough, perhaps there could be more done. In a quote from Sterling he says, "I wish I had just paid her off," (USA Today.) Money has obviously gotten him far in life, it's a shame that he feels that this could have been resolved by more money.
I think Brandon makes a very good point about the consumer. In the end, the consumer is the most important. Now that mostly everyone sees Sterling as a racist, people are going to judge him, the team, and the NBA, and that's why the NBA had to react accordingly.
Personally, I think it's important that Sterling sells the Clippers. It's pretty ridiculous that he's racist against African Americans, who compose much of his team. If he can't truly respect and value his team, in public or private, I don't think he deserves to own it. By which I mean, respect the individuals on his team as equal human beings, not just as good athletes or anything.
I think that the NBA's response was perfectly appropriate. Because of the way that the conflict played out, it was especially important for Silver and the NBA to take an immediate and concrete stance on the issue. Like some of the other commenters noted, the players especially needed to see that the NBA doesn't tolerate racism from owners -such deliberate and public racism, no less. The severity of the response from the NBA establishes exactly that. Had Silver not taken such a strong stance, he would have run a high risk of facing intense criticism and the situation right now would probably be much worse. Given the specifically anti-black sentiment of Sterling's comments, this issue is especially sensitive with players. Demonstrations of protest currently have even greater weight because of increased publicity from playoffs as well. I think that I definitely fall into the majority of others who support the NBA's response. I also personally hope that the NBA forces Sterling to sell. Yes, he would make money, but that is an inevitable side effect of measures that would overall positively impact the league.
The man's entitled to his own opinions. Though racist, he's a free man and can think for himself. Don't we all judge? Some of us are just better than others at staying politically correct in private settings. This doesn't justify his morally debased comment, but it is a fact of human nature that is not irrelevant.
As for the punishment, I don't think the NBA really had a choice. In the public eye, they had to make an example of him in order to appease consumers and ultimately the cash flow. The NBA is right to levy consequences, whether directly or indirectly, for this type of behavior on such an influential figure. Fair or not fair, it's their ruling. I agree with Matt - this does not deserve the sensational attention that it's gotten.
Another consideration in my mind is the double-standard. Would another public figure with perhaps different background have faced the same consequences for the same statement? I don't think so.
Considering that Don Sterling has a prior history of being racist, I believe that the league had no choice but to ban him from the league. They cannot afford to have one of the owners considered to be racist. The league also has a financial motivation to force him to sell the team. There may be people he stop attend Clipper games or Clipper games as they did not want to buy things from someone they considered a racist. Los Angeles is the second biggest media market in the US. The NBA uses revenue sharing so if the Clippers lose money, all teams lose money. Using this as their motivation, the NBA may be successful in their attempts to force Sterling to sell his team
I believe that this is a fitting punishment for Donald Sterling. The things he said reflect badly on the NBA as well as him, and people need to see that the NBA does not share his racist views. I do wonder why the NBA has waited all of this time to take action if it is a well known fact that Sterling has a history of racism, but I think that the important thing is that the NBA is finally cracking down on him for it.
Post a Comment