Jason Whitlock a columnist at ESPN has published an article saying among other things that:
"Removing Donald Sterling from the NBA solves nothing. It sets a precedent that will likely boomerang and harm the black players and coaches who are shocked and outraged that an 80-year-old man with a documented history of bigoted actions also has bigoted private thoughts."I can agree with parts of what he is saying. I think mob rule is a bad thing. In fact I doubt you'd find anyone out there willing to admit that they like it. I also think it's important to take measured steps when determining how to proceed with cases like this.
However, I think Whitlock's article is at its core flawed. He essentially defends... Well maybe defends is the wrong word. He excuses? Perhaps that is wrong too. He understands that Sterling grew up in a certain "culture" and that that culture sees people of other races as bad.
"I don't want to change the culture because I can't," Sterling says. "It's too big."Whitlock goes on to talk about his own father's culture and how that shaped his life. I'm not here to cast judgment on Sterling or Whitlock's father or anyone else but I don't think that hiding behind this idea of 'culture' is an excuse.
Many people grow up in cultures that are toxic. But not everyone is a racist, homophobic, misogynistic or anything else. It is extremely regressive to say that people shouldn't better themselves simply because of how they were raised. Are children born of alcoholic parents more likely to alcoholic themselves? Probably but that definitely doesn't mean shouldn't try to steer their own lives in a different direction. I don't think Whitlock is saying people out there don't come from bad cultures and many of them don't try to better themselves but when are we going to stop letting "old white males" get away with this?
Sterling had to be banned by the NBA. From simply a "the right thing to do" perspective to a financial perspective he had to go. Numerous sponsors had already begun to pull away from the Clippers which in turn meant the NBA as a whole was getting less money. Rather than poo-poo the NBA for acting to quickly I think they and Adam Silver should be applauded for taking such quick action. If Silver only acted because he knew there was about to be a strike that is also good because that means the players have the power. Compare Silver's response to this to Roger Goddell's response to the concussion issue. I know they are entirely separate issues but it is still refreshing to see a commissioner act decisively.
What Whitlock and a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that NBA is not the US government nor is Sterling simply a citizen. This is not comparable to the government coming to your door and confiscating your house. The LA Clippers are in part owned by the City of Los Angeles. That name is on their jerseys, they play in a stadium at least in part owned by the city. For someone who represents such a large part of that community to make such comments cannot be allowed to stand. Especially from an owner who is and should be held to larger standard than a player. The LA Clippers are a franchise of the NBA similar to any other sort of franchise and if it is determined that you are representing that company in a bad light the company has the right as set forth in the constitution of said company to revoke your privilege to own that franchise.
Whitlock raises the point that allowing privately held conversations that are illegally recorded (at least in California) as a reason to take away someone's property is a bad thing. This goes back to my last point. Those conversations would not be allowed in a court of law. But the NBA is not a court of law, it's a privately run business. This is really the low hanging fruit but if you are worried about conversations you say coming back to haunt you, perhaps you shouldn't be fusing racist or derogatory remarks. This is really the chickens coming home to roost. If you have a mistress and then talk to that mistress about how you disapprove of her associating with people of color maybe this what you get? Of course that is an overly simple way of looking at it.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this situation, as Whitlock points out. I agree with his assertion that NBA had ample opportunities to deal with Sterling before. Either during his housing discrimination case of the Elgin Baylor case. According to Silver the NBA acted within the limits of the legal framework but ask anyone in LA and they can tell you Sterling has been a festering scar on the city for decades. The various rewards he has received from the city, including almost receiving a second life time achievement award from the NAACP basically make those organizations out as jokes, giving out awards to the highest bidder. However I really take offence to the way he suggests that all white people are equally responsible for this.
"White people should be wearing black socks, turning their T-shirts inside out, protesting outside the Staples Center. This is their culture, their Frankenstein. Or maybe they agree with Donald T. Sterling."Excuse me? So by not dressing a certain way or wearing my clothes a certain way I now agree with what Sterling is saying? I'm sorry but this is where the article lost all credibility to me. This is a direct insult to the countless number of
"...the NBA power structure cede some of its governing power to men and women who look like the overwhelming majority of the league's players."Basically affirmative action. Having a more diverse power-structure in the NBA, especially one that reflects the vast majority of the players would be a great thing. However, what would forcing that upon the league do? It would simply be band-aid on a gaping wound.
I have a strong suspicion Whitlock says things simply to say things. The bottom line is the league did what it had to both from a practical and more importantly from a humanitarian perspective. Has has some interesting points but it's a shame it's drowned by sensationalist garbage.
