Racism, David Sterling the racist owner, and the NBA

[Something Amyss]

Can they take the team from him? No, the league can't force him to sell the team?

It's a franchised team, so yes, they can.

Can they take the team away from him though? Like what degree of ownership do they have over that? For example in the McDonalds analogy, if I own the property and the building, they couldn't take that, they could just say it isnt allowed to operate as a McDonalds, correct?

So he can keep the building (Except not, because they don't own the Staples Center), but can't actually run the Clippers as an NBA team. Even if he could keep the player contracts, they can't play NBA ball, so...I'm curious as to what this analogy changes. That's the thing. Even if he still owns the team, he doesn't have any meaningful use. In the McDonalds analogy, you could buy into another franchise, but good luck finding another basketball franchise in the US. Unless he really wants to open a fast food joint....

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm just wondering where is the witch-hunt for Alec Baldwin when he makes juvenile homophobic remarks?

Ironic, coming from the gaming community.

But you may have noticed, it's different when it's gays. It's always different. That's why people aren't complaining about blacks marrying anymore.

 

[Thyunda]

Now I know nothing about this guy, so I can't speak for his donations to charities or prior racism, but the comments included in the first post did not...seem personally racist. Not to me, at least. From the way he was talking about his mistress, he implies that it's not that she's hanging around with black people - that's not what's bothering him. Think how many times you've seen a demotivational poster involving a white girl and a group of black men with some 'daddy issues' caption stuck to the bottom. It's a cultural perception and the image it conveys is one of a particular kind of girl. Evidently one that Sterling doesn't feel his mistress is or should be perceived as.


This wouldn't be an issue for most people, but American businessmen and team-owners seem to receive similar celebrity treatment to the players themselves, and so if Sterling's '+1' is putting out an image that he feels is damaging to their public image, it's not unreasonable for him to take her to one side and in a private conversation ask her to stop making herself look like that.

Those are just my thoughts on the evidence in the first post. 'Racism is racism' doesn't...really apply here, and if you want to start applying sweeping statements then I would like to know how exactly you plan to combat racism, because simply yelling 'RACIST' isn't going to find the root of the problem.


Note - this is not a debate on whether you can typify women in the way that I did in the first paragraph. You know as well as I do the kind of cultural perception surrounding white girls who take pictures of themselves with black men, and while neither of us agree with that notion, it still exists.

 

[Aulleas123]

I'm just wondering where is the witch-hunt for Alec Baldwin when he makes juvenile homophobic remarks?

Ironic, coming from the gaming community.

But you may have noticed, it's different when it's gays. It's always different. That's why people aren't complaining about blacks marrying anymore.

Very true, that's the reason why I don't play many games multi-player...

I do feel like we've either gotten better about comments we make as a whole or that I've gotten used to it from forums and comments sections. The former would be great, the latter would just be sad.

 

[Harleykin]

a racist jew.....?!
seriously? i'm from germany and i find this a bit hilarious.
and yes he was all over the news here too (at least in my radio station i listen to while i'm working)

well someone said it's a breach of privacy and yes i think so too. you can be as stupid and racisct as you want to be at your own home....unless the motherfucking nsa is listening in on you...

i feel no problem for a rich american racist to be slendert in public.
and yes: thanks obama!

 

[wulf3n]

Hmmm!

Well that is slightly confusing to say the least: digging into the details of the first link reveals the NAACP's original nomination was for his donations to the "minority youth community" so I'm a bit perplexed. It seems contradictory to be giving money to black youth groups, then saying the elder ones "smell and attract cockroaches", so either Mr Sterling is a much better person then we all suspected or the NAACP is a joke.

After all, cynical person might suspect that throwing money at "Feel Good" causes is a great cover for personal bigoted views/actions....

It is a very strange situation there. Most writers/commentators are saying that it was basically nothing but PR since he has been known by just about everyone in the know that he's a pretty horrible person all around (very cheap and keeping his teams irrelevant due to his practices, treating his employees like dirt, and the racism stuff that is now in the spot-light due to the comments just released).

However...does that take away from the fact that he has donated all this money and potentially made all these differences? He's a horrible person who has done a lot of good (regardless of what his motivations were for doing the good). As you state in your edit, "When the bigots are doing more for equality than the everyone else you know shits fucked up."

Also, I'll edit this story into the OP.

Oh, I don't doubt his reasoning was most likely self indulgent, I'm just not sure if I consider that something that matters.

Of course, he's really not doing more for equality. He's hampering it. He's simply throwing money at a situation to make it better. He's got a history, as people have already commented on. It not only doesn't make him less of a racist shitbag, it also doesn't mean he's actually solving anything. You can argue " potential," but all Wulf3n's really doing here is trying to muddy the waters. And to do that, we have to ignore a lot of other people--not every NAACP honouree is a racist, for example.

All I'm really trying to do here is show that nothing is as black and white as people want to believe.

Becuase out of all this, those that really suffer are the Charities who can no longer accept his money out of fear of association with him, because people are so quick to foam at the mouth.

Should it matter that the guy is an incredibly racist asshole if the money he's donating with no strings attached has helped/could help hundreds if not thousands of people?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

In the general karma view of things, yes, he was a racist asshole and certainly had something coming to him, whatever that may have been. But I strongly believe that in the direct transaction of his private views having professional consequences, that should not happen. If he does anything illegal, he should be legally prosecuted, and if he says stupid shit in a public forum, people should see him as stupid and call him out on it or say shit to him. But being a racist shouldn't have its own consequences, and that's essentially what this is. It is not something he's done, or announced, or anything in connection with basketball, it's something he said with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I completely agree that racists should have a hard time in some areas and get flak for being racists. But it's not right to punish someone professionally for something they believe privately.

Hopefully, by now, you're aware this is more the straw that broke the camel's back, rather than the first salvo. This guy's been known to be a racist for years, and done some pretty shitty things. Several people have commented on this in the Escapist's thread with that community manager who got fired.

Yeah. It's still worrying to me, but really the worst consequence of the situation was the community manager getting fired. One less racist in sports I can rationalise, but a reasonable opinion on a personal Twitter account definitely should not result in that kind of action. It was a public statement, putting it in more reasonably punishable territory than private remarks in one's own house, but it was also harmless and in no way reflected poorly on Evolve.

 

[Something Amyss]

Better to ignore something you can't change.

Can he continue to abuse and harass players if fired?

If not, then your argument is completely invalid and your statement is largely a strawman.

Yeah. It's still worrying to me, but really the worst consequence of the situation was the community manager getting fired. One less racist in sports I can rationalise, but a reasonable opinion on a personal Twitter account definitely should not result in that kind of action. It was a public statement, putting it in more reasonably punishable territory than private remarks in one's own house, but it was also harmless and in no way reflected poorly on Evolve.

A community manager is a company rep and is supposed to reflect on the company. If they felt he wasn't reflecting on them well, well....I mean, I'm not sure it's right, but it is their choice. In the US, we overwhelmingly support the freedom to employ who we want and the right to "vote with our dollars" and so on. This seems like it's not only par for the course, but should be an expected part of the job. If he wants to get edgy on social media, maybe public rep isn't the job for him in the first place. Then again, Twitter makes fools of us all...

I'm just going to remind people that because I'm saying it's their right doesn't mean I agree. Just because something is expected doesn't mean it's right.

I honestly don't know how I feel about his firing, but it seems like it was a stupid thing to do, and it did have people saying they weren't going to buy the game. I think it's weird how people in this country are all "vote with your dollars" and "you shouldn't be required to keep people around" up until it's some racist, homophobic, or stupid person who gets fired or boycotted. That's not aimed at you, just a general sort of thing about this whole kerfuffle. It's like those rights only extend until I disagree with you (hypothetical general you, not you you). We have freedom of religion when someone wants to put up the ten commandments, but when someone wants to put up a monument to Baphomet, free speech goes away. We have free speech to say bad things about gays or blacks, but when we say something bad about the people saying those things, we're instead bullies.

We should have the right to fire people if we don't like their race, gender or sexuality, but if you DARE fire (In this case, in a loose sense) someone for being racist or stupid for it....Well, that's just wrong. And if people want to change the standard, that's fine. I'm not arguing what is morally right, but what is socially acceptable and legally allowed. Because I don't really know. I kind of lean towards the "people have the right to choose who they want to support" side, though. If people want to boycott the company because of what their community manager said, good on them. The company can then decide whether or not to fire him. If people want to boycott the Clippers for what their owner said, good on them. The NBA can then decide whether he wants to sell or not. If people want to boycott A&E until Phil Robertson is put back on the air after being a racist and a homophobe, good on them. The network can then decide whether or not to reinstate him. And if anyone doubts my sincerity, go back and look at what I said about Duck Dynasty when the controversy was fresh. I don't care that it's against my own interest.

Speech in the public eye (which doesn't apply to Sterling as much as the other examples) has always been a dodgy proposition. People who work in the public should be aware of that. What amazes me is that our brains haven't caught up with the technology, evidently, since people keep tweeting stupid or risky things and getting surprised when it bites them in the ass. Then again, Congress hasn't figured out that what they say is recorded and can be recalled yet, so why am I surprised? Even if they didn't know about the Magic Box before Jon Stewart came along, he's been catching them in lies since like 1754.

It's worrying to me that we occupy some wave/particle-like uncertainty realm where we are simultaneously entrenched in and completely unaware of social media.

 

[NeutralDrow]

How to deal with a racist... ignore him.

Why do people pretend sticking their head in the sand is remotely a viable solution to problems?

Ignoring him just allows him to continue his history of abuse of players, which is what they HAD been doing and he HAD been doing up to this point. How can anyone ignore that and with a straight face say things would be better if we just played pretend?

Better to ignore something you can't change. Do you shake your fist at the heavens because the sun is too hot, do you curse God for making it rain? No, you go on with your life and deal with it the best you can.

Really? I thought the smart thing to do would be to build shelter. You can't change the attributes of the sun or the rain, but you can alter circumstances to where they won't cause you harm, rather than just "dealing with" heat stroke or hypothermia. I believe the saying goes "better to light a candle than curse the darkness."

That's really the main thing here. We can do something about this guy (and are, last I heard), and it's imperative that we don't ignore racists who have actual power. There's a difference between ignoring a troll who's screaming at people from their keyboard and ignoring a troll who's actively stalking people.

 

[EternallyBored]

Better to ignore something you can't change.

Can he continue to abuse and harass players if fired?

If not, then your argument is completely invalid and your statement is largely a strawman.

He's the owner of the team last I checked... how do you fire the guy? That's like a janitor firing the CEO, only less likely. He owns the team. Hmm and I'd be more worried about the legality of someone being forced to sell something they don't want to. I'd find that faaar more troubling than Racism.

Also news flash, everyone deals with Shite on the job... That's one of the lessons you learn from in life the ability to tolerate shitey working conditions and the wisdom to know when the pay isn't worth the shite you have to take.

If you don't like the workplace, leave it. and if he's really that bad, then well he'll own a team with one heck of an empty roster.

It's a franchise, he signs a contract full of rules and stipulations before he's allowed to buy the team, one of those stipulations allows the team owners to force another to sell their team if they have enough votes and the offending owner has violated one of the charter rules. In this case, if he loses enough sponsors and causes enough financial damage, they can force him to sell.

Because, it's not just the clippers that are damaged if the team suffers enough, the loss of sponsors can effect the whole NBA, why should the other team owners be required to take that loss, that's exactly why the charter exists, so one shitty owner can't drag the rest of them down with him. There's also the brackets and tournements such things screws up, if it gets bad enough it can ruin a whole season, then over two dozen other owners are now down tens of millions of dollars, it could even end up as bad as the MLB lockout in the 90's and we'll end up with a season with no champion, which will piss off a lot more than just the owners.

Like any franchise, I can buy and own something like a McDonalds, but if I try to turn my store into a bar, the Mcdonalds corporate board will step in and take my franchise from me. Same case here, he "owns" the team, but if the NBA sees him as a detriment to the league as a whole, they will try to force him to sell. This wouldn't even be the first time a professional sports team owner has been forced to sell their team, owning a team does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, you have to maintain certain standards, or they take your team away from you.

 

[Something Amyss]

He's the owner of the team last I checked... how do you fire the guy?

He's the owner of a franchise. The NBA can force him to sell. Unless you're really going to nitpick words (Which, looking at the claim of "everyone gets shite on the job" --most people aren't abused for their race on the job, so....), there doesn't appear to be anything to reply to. Care to actually answer my question instead of playing word games?

Like any franchise, I can buy and own something like a McDonalds, but if I try to turn my store into a bar, the Mcdonalds corporate board will step in and take my franchise from me.

McDonalds can similarly very likely revoke your franchise for not meeting their terms and criteria and can even opt to not renew even if you do follow the rules.

 

[EternallyBored]

He's the owner of the team last I checked... how do you fire the guy?

He's the owner of a franchise. The NBA can force him to sell. Unless you're really going to nitpick words (Which, looking at the claim of "everyone gets shite on the job" --most people aren't abused for their race on the job, so....), there doesn't appear to be anything to reply to. Care to actually answer my question instead of playing word games?

To expand, most people aren't abused for their race on the job, because in the U.S. it is illegal to do so, race is a federally protected class, along with religion and sex (not sexuality though, that's on a state by state basis).

While the use of the word shite makes me think that BigTuk might be British or Autralian, and I have no idea what their discrimination laws are like; here in the U.S., giving someone "shite" solely because of their race is basically a fast track to opening yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit, so "ignoring the racists" is not only terrible advice, it involves ignoring someone committing a crime.

Even just with the Sterling case, ignoring it is still terrible advice, since stirring up shit has already gotten him fined and banned from ever attending any Clippers games in the future. Not ignoring it is also what caused him to lose against the homeowners that sued him for discriminatory practices in the buildings he owns, while it hasn't made everything sunshine and rainbows, calling Mr. Sterling out on his shit has accomplished more than any amount of silence ever did.

McDonalds can similarly very likely revoke your franchise for not meeting their terms and criteria and can even opt to not renew even if you do follow the rules.

While the McDonald's example isn't perfect, he's probably closer to being on the board of directors for the NBA, rather than just a franchise owner, he is still part of a larger organization, so the concept is still similar.

In the end, the other teams suffering is why the NBA charter and provisions exist, why should the other team owners be made to suffer just because of Mr. Sterling. NBA games require 2 teams, and if attendance suffers in any game involving the Clipper's, that means any owner that plays against Mr. Sterling's team is now potentially suffering from financial loss.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I can't snip for diddly.

Well, I think it should because racist beliefs rarely operate in a vacuum where they will never affect someone's actions. A landlord who hates Asians might very well let them rent his apartments, but he might still succumb to the temptation to commit subtle acts of sabotage on their homes or overcharge them on rent or what have you, precisely because of his beliefs.

And if charitable donations are made for purely self-indulgent reasons, then what's the bloody point? "Hey ethnic minorities, have a few thousand bucks on me: I still hate your guts and you animals need to stay away from my women but this should get me a favourable mention in some trendy magazine for what a wonderful person I am."

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yeah. It's still worrying to me, but really the worst consequence of the situation was the community manager getting fired. One less racist in sports I can rationalise, but a reasonable opinion on a personal Twitter account definitely should not result in that kind of action. It was a public statement, putting it in more reasonably punishable territory than private remarks in one's own house, but it was also harmless and in no way reflected poorly on Evolve.

A community manager is a company rep and is supposed to reflect on the company. If they felt he wasn't reflecting on them well, well....I mean, I'm not sure it's right, but it is their choice. In the US, we overwhelmingly support the freedom to employ who we want and the right to "vote with our dollars" and so on. This seems like it's not only par for the course, but should be an expected part of the job. If he wants to get edgy on social media, maybe public rep isn't the job for him in the first place. Then again, Twitter makes fools of us all...

I'm just going to remind people that because I'm saying it's their right doesn't mean I agree. Just because something is expected doesn't mean it's right.

I honestly don't know how I feel about his firing, but it seems like it was a stupid thing to do, and it did have people saying they weren't going to buy the game. I think it's weird how people in this country are all "vote with your dollars" and "you shouldn't be required to keep people around" up until it's some racist, homophobic, or stupid person who gets fired or boycotted. That's not aimed at you, just a general sort of thing about this whole kerfuffle. It's like those rights only extend until I disagree with you (hypothetical general you, not you you). We have freedom of religion when someone wants to put up the ten commandments, but when someone wants to put up a monument to Baphomet, free speech goes away. We have free speech to say bad things about gays or blacks, but when we say something bad about the people saying those things, we're instead bullies.

We should have the right to fire people if we don't like their race, gender or sexuality, but if you DARE fire (In this case, in a loose sense) someone for being racist or stupid for it....Well, that's just wrong. And if people want to change the standard, that's fine. I'm not arguing what is morally right, but what is socially acceptable and legally allowed. Because I don't really know. I kind of lean towards the "people have the right to choose who they want to support" side, though. If people want to boycott the company because of what their community manager said, good on them. The company can then decide whether or not to fire him. If people want to boycott the Clippers for what their owner said, good on them. The NBA can then decide whether he wants to sell or not. If people want to boycott A&E until Phil Robertson is put back on the air after being a racist and a homophobe, good on them. The network can then decide whether or not to reinstate him. And if anyone doubts my sincerity, go back and look at what I said about Duck Dynasty when the controversy was fresh. I don't care that it's against my own interest.

Speech in the public eye (which doesn't apply to Sterling as much as the other examples) has always been a dodgy proposition. People who work in the public should be aware of that. What amazes me is that our brains haven't caught up with the technology, evidently, since people keep tweeting stupid or risky things and getting surprised when it bites them in the ass. Then again, Congress hasn't figured out that what they say is recorded and can be recalled yet, so why am I surprised? Even if they didn't know about the Magic Box before Jon Stewart came along, he's been catching them in lies since like 1754.

It's worrying to me that we occupy some wave/particle-like uncertainty realm where we are simultaneously entrenched in and completely unaware of social media.

You raise a good point, but my answer in general is that companies generally don't want to fire people who are doing a good job professionally, and while I think they should be able to hire and fire whoever they like, in these kinds of cases it's really the backlash that decides what happens. I can't really blame a company for firing someone whose opinions caused people to boycott the game, and people have the ability to choose whether to buy a game or not and they can use it to send messages. In fact I support using it to send messages about the product and the company's business practises. But responding to a personal opinion made on a personal account (yes, still affiliated with the company but not an extension of it) with a boycott creates an environment where companies will fire over controversial opinions to avoid backlash and representatives have to hide their identity or opinions outside of the company persona. It is a bit naive to say anything on Twitter and expect a reasonable response, but ideally it would be fine, and we as the internet population are deciding whether or not that's the case.

Basically I'm saying that we, or at least the immediate reactors to these incidents, are forcing a companies' hand when we boycott over things said on Twitter and the company is only doing the reasonable thing. We create the problem. And you're right, the majority of the time people in support of freedom of speech and people in support of progressive views often end up on the same side, but once something like this happens you get to see who's really who.

 

[wulf3n]

Well, I think it should because racist beliefs rarely operate in a vacuum where they will never affect someone's actions. A landlord who hates Asians might very well let them rent his apartments, but he might still succumb to the temptation to commit subtle acts of sabotage on their homes or overcharge them on rent or what have you, precisely because of his beliefs.

A good point. Thought that would probably be a criminal act, I was thinking more along the lines of a person holding racist views, but not doing anything illegal.

And if charitable donations are made for purely self-indulgent reasons, then what's the bloody point? "Hey ethnic minorities, have a few thousand bucks on me: I still hate your guts and you animals need to stay away from my women but this should get me a favourable mention in some trendy magazine for what a wonderful person I am."

The way I see it while the money may come from a questionable source, it still has the power to help people.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Well, I think it should because racist beliefs rarely operate in a vacuum where they will never affect someone's actions. A landlord who hates Asians might very well let them rent his apartments, but he might still succumb to the temptation to commit subtle acts of sabotage on their homes or overcharge them on rent or what have you, precisely because of his beliefs.

A good point. Thought that would probably be a criminal act, I was thinking more along the lines of a person holding racist views, but not doing anything illegal.

And if charitable donations are made for purely self-indulgent reasons, then what's the bloody point? "Hey ethnic minorities, have a few thousand bucks on me: I still hate your guts and you animals need to stay away from my women but this should get me a favourable mention in some trendy magazine for what a wonderful person I am."

The way I see it while the money may come from a questionable source, it still has the power to help people.

Without wishing to imply something as hyperbolic that all people with any sort of prejudices are simply ticking time-bombs, the behaviour of those with openly/less-openly racist views should probably be put under close scrutiny. I mean, how could you determine that actions that have negative effects on others were for fair reasons - "I fired you because you suck at your job" - or were due to bigotry - "Officially I fired you because you suck at your job, but I hate your race and have been looking for the slightest mishap to get rid of you"?

As for the money issue, I agree that the money itself is "neutral" and can help people regardless of who donated it in the first place; it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people who hold scumbag views can just throw money at a positive cause and call it a day. I know, I know, that's just the reality of the world we live in but ideally people should be donating to stuff they believe in, not stuff they will get a PR bonus from.

 

[Something Amyss]

To expand, most people aren't abused for their race on the job, because in the U.S. it is illegal to do so, race is a federally protected class, along with religion and sex (not sexuality though, that's on a state by state basis).

Well, yes, though in this case and is the case with other contracted performers there's an issue of reporting. Though that's neither here nor there.

While the use of the word shite makes me think that BigTuk might be British or Autralian, and I have no idea what their discrimination laws are like; here in the U.S., giving someone "shite" solely because of their race is basically a fast track to opening yourself up to a discrimination lawsuit, so "ignoring the racists" is not only terrible advice, it involves ignoring someone committing a crime.

Good point, actually.

Even just with the Sterling case, ignoring it is still terrible advice, since stirring up shit has already gotten him fined and banned from ever attending any Clippers games in the future. Not ignoring it is also what caused him to lose against the homeowners that sued him for discriminatory practices in the buildings he owns, while it hasn't made everything sunshine and rainbows, calling Mr. Sterling out on his shit has accomplished more than any amount of silence ever did.

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll stop out of the kindness of his heart?

More seriously, he's been doing this stuff since at least 2006, and ignoring it seems to have accomplished little.

While the McDonald's example isn't perfect, he's probably closer to being on the board of directors for the NBA, rather than just a franchise owner, he is still part of a larger organization, so the concept is still similar.

True. The provisions do appear to allow the board to vote each other off with enough votes. Now, in most cases they probably won't go after each other, because it's bad for them and their interests. But yeah. When they run the risk of this hurting their teams and the league as a whole, they have the option to act.

Basically I'm saying that we, or at least the immediate reactors to these incidents, are forcing a companies' hand when we boycott over things said on Twitter and the company is only doing the reasonable thing. We create the problem. And you're right, the majority of the time people in support of freedom of speech and people in support of progressive views often end up on the same side, but once something like this happens you get to see who's really who.

The problem is created by the market itself. As long as we have a market of self-determination, we as consumer will always look out for our own interests and the companies will do the same. We haven't created the problem so much as continued to use the market as ostensibly intended.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Basically I'm saying that we, or at least the immediate reactors to these incidents, are forcing a companies' hand when we boycott over things said on Twitter and the company is only doing the reasonable thing. We create the problem. And you're right, the majority of the time people in support of freedom of speech and people in support of progressive views often end up on the same side, but once something like this happens you get to see who's really who.

The problem is created by the market itself. As long as we have a market of self-determination, we as consumer will always look out for our own interests and the companies will do the same. We haven't created the problem so much as continued to use the market as ostensibly intended.

I'm not saying we shouldn't voice our opinions and use boycotting to influence the market, which was definitely intended. But I think the intention was that the market reward or punish products and business practises rather than personal views, which to me seems to undermine a system where good products float to the top, if we're going to boycott and have people fired over things completely unrelated.