In an audio recording between a woman and allegedly NBA team owner Donald Sterling:
“It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people,” the voice attributed to Sterling says. “Do you have to?”
“You can sleep with [black people],” he allegedly adds. “You can bring them in; you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”
And for these words, the Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is being investigated by the NBA — and is expected to be punished today.
Now never mind that Sterling has long exhibited questionable character. Never mind that such is no secret in the NBA. Never mind, also, that the woman who made the recording is Sterling’s mistress and is being sued by Sterling’s wife. Never mind that he is 81 and she is 31. Never mind, too, that she has been accused of extortion and that both her character and motives are questionable. Sterling’s comments — even if taken out of context — are disrespectful and highly offensive.
While never supportive of such sobering disrespect, the Intramuralist is also intrigued by society’s response. It’s been swift, serious, and especially strong.
Understandably, many have called for extended discipline. Some have called for Sterling’s suspension; others have called for a boycott of Clipper games. The players association wants Sterling banned from playoff games this season in addition to the league’s maximum punishment. Still more have called for Sterling to lose his team; many have said Sterling should not be allowed to own a professional franchise. His ownership should be taken away.
Therein is where the intrigue arises. I have two, sincere questions:
One, (sorry to be somewhat crass, but attempting to cut to the point…) are people no longer allowed to say anything stupid? Are they allowed to even believe something foolish?
And then two, who decides what “stupid” is? After all, as a culture, are we consistent in what foolishness we will allow?
My honest question is whether we are overly sensitive to specific subjects — and if sometimes we dilute the credibility of both our emotion and point because we pick and choose what to tolerate. Make no mistake about it: Sterling’s comments reek of foolishness; reportedly, he has long been known to be a man of questionable moral, discriminatory character; he’s owned an NBA team for over 30 years. But for some reason, this issue is heightened now. And for some reason, it seems we ignore that reeking aroma when the insensitivity is blatant elsewhere.
I think of Bill Maher, who has routinely slammed God, women, people of varied faiths, and even the city of Boston after last year’s bombings. And yet Maher continues to host a regular talk show spewing daily disrespect. Should Maher be allowed to host a show? Should he be allowed to spew foolish opinion? Should we take that right away from him?
While the Intramuralist will never knowingly support foolishness, I am equally concerned about a world where we feel we must punish the opinion holder by eliminating individual liberty — a world in which we feel the need and even capability to police moral opinion… believing, it seems, that we have the discernment to assess all foolishness. A wiser approach, I believe — as I practice with Bill Maher — is to intentionally opt not to reward such persons with our time, money, or attention. I won’t be paying attention to Bill Maher any time soon… nor to Donald Sterling.
Respectfully…
AR
I am in no way condoning what was said, but I do think that we also need to take into account the culture in which he was raised. At 81 yoa, he was born in 1933. He was raised in a time when you DIDN’T socialize with African Americans, and if you did, you certainly didn’t advertise it. He was 22 yoa when Rosa Parks rode the bus, and 35 when Martin Luther King was assassinated. It is not always easy to change the beliefs with which one was raised. Marge Schott, former owner of the Cincinnati Reds was ousted from baseball for the same offense. And she was born in 1928; a mere 4 years older than Sterling, and raised with the same cultural values.
While we may not agree with a person’s values, I believe that we have to somehow acknowledge that being raised in a different era brings a different belief system. just as being raised in a different church or country. Some of our beliefs may be hard to change, but hopefully, we can learn to think before we speak, so at the very least, we can lessen the harshness of what we say. At best, we could possibly avoid saying some things all together.
The difference in how the Sterling and Mayer situations were handled is simply money. The NBA stood to lose millions in sponsorships if they didn’t expunge Sterling. HBO likely gained ratings because of the attention Mayer’s outlandish comments garnered.
Your main point still holds true…the reason the financial incentives were different for the two situations is because of the varying ways society reacted. Another example: adultery and bigotry are both behaviors that should be discouraged. Bring your mistress for years to share your courtside seats and no one bats an eye. Have your racist thoughts revealed and the penalty is swift.
How ironic that Bill Maher agrees: https://mobile.twitter.com/billmaher/status/460882196476092418
I think the major lesson to learn here is that our society vilifies racism, but doesn’t blink an eye at adultery.
Sterling has the right to be stupid. That’s why there are no criminal proceedings here. But there is no right to own an NBA team. He had to go. He would have destroyed their business.
That said, liberals should support his right to do and say whatever he wants without the shackles of any sense of moral standard. But liberals are no longer liberal. They are becoming totalitarian, the exact opposite of liberalism. If your viewpoint can’t win over the majority opinion, silence the opposition:
http://weeklystandard.com/articles/shut-they-explained_788987.html