By Jeff Iorg, President of Golden Gate Seminary
Donald Sterling, owner of the National Basketball League’s Los Angeles Clippers, was recently banned from the NBA for making racist comments to his mistress.
This action by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has been widely applauded in popular media. I work in a pluralistic, multi-ethnic environment (we have been called the most multicultural seminary in the world), so I have followed the whole episode with considerable interest.
While Sterling’s racism is offensive and deserves condemnation, the overall public response has intrigued me – particularly with respect to three issues.
First, Sterling made his comments to his girlfriend – while he is still married. While his racism was rightly condemned as immoral, I have yet to hear media leaders condemn Sterling for his open, arrogant adultery.
One radio commentator, when asked about this issue, opined “all rich men have mistresses so that’s really not an issue.” Apparently, adultery is acceptable – just as long as you are not a racist adulterer.
Second, Sterling’s comments resulted in his being banned from owning a business. Sounds good on the surface, but is that really a position you support?
During the Civil Rights Movement, boycotting businesses was an effective method of forcing societal change. Martin Luther King used boycotting as a primary means of non-violent resistance. But, boycotting a business is not the same as denying a person the right to own a business. Equating them is a major cultural leap – perhaps leading to a new legal precedent.
While you may agree with the action in Sterling’s case, what if he were banned for holding that homosexual behavior is a sin or same-sex marriage is wrong or some other politically incorrect position? That may be the cause of the next banning. If you don’t believe me, ask Brendan Eich who, until recently, ran Mozilla.
Eich was forced out as CEO of Mozilla, a California-based software company best known for producing the Firefox web browser, because it was learned he had supported California’s Proposition 8.
Prop 8 was a 2008 constitutional amendment that stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” Voters in The Golden State passed the amendment.
Finally, Sterling’s comments were no less vulgar and offensive than the lyrics of hip-hop artists who own, associate with, and are promoted by NBA teams.
Will the NBA demonstrate consistency and drop all business relationships with racists, homophobes, and misogynists who call their vitriol “art” so they can get away with pumping it into culture? I doubt it.
Racism, it seems, is apparently acceptable – as long as it is expressed in a song or a stand-up comedy routine – just not the boardroom or the privacy of your home.
Sterling’s comments were moronic. He deserved personal censure and financial consequences. There’s no defense for his position.
However, there is a need to think carefully about the implications of how his behavior was confronted by the NBA. The way this matter was resolved may have far reaching and troubling social, political, and legal consequences.