I wrote a post about the Brendan Eich situation and was going to post it this morning but a recent controversy has prompted me to address something else first.
Last week the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers was (allegedly) recorded making racist comments to his girlfriend, telling her he prefers she not associate herself or the team with black people in public. The recording, made by his girlfriend (who, by the way, is apparently black and latina), was released to the public (likely by her) and has set off a storm of criticism and outrage. The Clippers team itself engaged in a protest by hiding the Clippers logo on their warmup jerseys and then dumping them midcourt (see photo) before their first round playoff game on Sunday.
This is not the first time Donald Sterling has been known to utter an unpopular sentiment. In the past he has allegedly made comments far worse than what he was caught saying to his girlfriend, comments which I will not duplicate here. Simply put, he’s not a very nice person, and not many in the Clippers organization have nice things to say about him. Now, however, his behavior may cost him his team. The NBA is under pressure to force Sterling to sell the Clippers as his very presence will now surely drive advertisers away and will fuel the refusal of popular figures in and out of the league to support the team. Already current and former players have publicly voiced their displeasure with Sterling. This isn’t something that will just go away.
I read an article over the weekend written in response to this controversy that criticizes those who came to Brendan Eich’s defense when he was basically forced to resign as CEO from Mozilla when his support of Prop 8 several years ago was made public. The article states that anyone defending Eich’s support of Prop 8 but unwilling to defend Sterling’s racism is a hypocrite.
I take exception to this for a couple reasons:
- Brendan Eich did not oppose gay people for being gay. He opposed the action of their getting married. This is very different than Sterling, who appears to simply not like black people in general. Conflating the two is misleading and dishonest. There is a difference between someone’s behavior and who they are. There is no evidence that Brendan Eich dislikes gay people. It is unfortunately a common refrain from gay marriage activists that anyone opposed to gay marriage, gay sex or anything else labeled “homosexual” behavior must also necessarily hate gay people as well, which is obviously ridiculous.
- Many of those who came to Eich’s defense did not defend or justify his support of Prop 8. They simply defended his right to support Prop 8 so and urged those in disagreement not to harass, threaten or professionally destroy him for it. Surely Donald Sterling is allowed to have his private feelings about black people, even if most people find those feelings abhorrent? Should someone who does not want to associate with people of a particular race in public be barred from owning a business in which the majority of the workforce is made up of that race? Or, in this day and age, are we justified in telling people “you can’t think a certain way and still work here”? Does punishing people for expressing unpopular sentiments solve anything or does it simply sweep the issue under the rug? Certainly Sterling’s ouster will not change his opinion of black people. Is that good enough? He can think whatever he wants as long as we don’t have to know about it and as long as he’s not in charge? Something about that just doesn’t feel right to me.
If I worked for someone who I knew disliked people of my race, I would feel very uncomfortable working for him. At the same time, demanding he resign and shuffling him off for someone else to deal with feels wrong. I want to believe people can change. Ostracizing and punishing them for their personal feelings will only entrench their negative perceptions. Doesn’t it seem like the better approach to show them love and kindness despite their hurtful words? There is a time for protest, for boycott, but we must also recognize that we live in a time of equality and progress and if we want continue along that path the goal should be to uplift those caught behind, not push them further away.
I will have more to say about this within the next few days.
Adam-
I think it’s good that you draw a distinction between the Eich situation and the Sterling situation, because they are very different. Eich made it abundantly clear that he liked, respected, and valued his LGBTQ colleagues and customers, and that he would continue the Mozilla Foundations progressive policies when it comes to insurance and other benefits for same sex couples. He opposed gay marriage, but he was not a bigot.
Sterling is, not just by his statement here but also previous court cases, a racist. So we’re talking about two very, very different things. There should be room in the public sphere for those who oppose gay marriage on thoughtful, non-bigoted grounds. In fact, a bunch of legal scholars (many who support gay marriage) recently released a statement on this topic called Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both. I don’t think anyone believes we should also be carving out a socially accepting space for racists to air their “side,” however, especially since Sterling’s comments were devoid of any attempt at reasoned discussion.
So, again, not the same situation at all.
And there’s an important implication of this. Chasing someone out of a job for their privately held opinions is one thing. Enforcing a moral turpitude clause in an employment contract is another. Now, I don’t know if Sterling has any such contract (he’s not actually an employee of the NBA, he’s an owner), but the principle is the same. By going off on a racist tirade he isn’t just disclosing private beliefs, he’s engaging in behavior that “is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”
Without making a legal argument, I can see how that would be a totally different situation than the Eich matter.
So, Eich had private political views that were not hateful. Sterling went on a racist tirade. Chasing Eich out of his job is about political correctness. Chasing Sterling out of his job is about having a minimum standard of decency. So I agree that these aren’t the same at all, and I think I might disagree slightly with your second point in that I don’t really have a problem with Sterling facing repercussions over this (presuming the allegations are true, of course).
Nathaniel,
Thanks, and I want to make it clear that I don’t think we need to give racists room to discuss why they think a race of people is inferior. I’m merely questioning the wisdom of forcing him out of his position and then washing our hands of him–not because he doesn’t deserve it or because it wouldn’t be justified, but because I’m not sure it actually solves anything. We’re still mad about the fact that racism exists and Sterling probably only feels vindicated. I’m not sure what the right way to handle the situation is. Personally, I’d like to believe that in the same situation I would respond to Sterling’s hateful and ignorant comments with kindness and forgiveness. I would not, however, expect anyone else to respond the same way.
By going off on a racist tirade he isn’t just disclosing private beliefs, he’s engaging in behavior that “is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”
So, Eich had private political views that were not hateful. Sterling went on a racist tirade. Chasing Eich out of his job is about political correctness. Chasing Sterling out of his job is about having a minimum standard of decency.
I agree with this. Sterling is definitely well out of bounds. I think there should be repercussions, but I’d like those repercussions to serve a purpose other than just making us feel good about punishing the old, rich, white racist. That was what I was trying to get at.
The problem, of course, is that saying “[Whoever] made it abundantly clear that he liked, respected, and valued his LGBTQ colleagues and customers, and that he would continue the [business’s] progressive policies when it comes to insurance and other benefits for same sex couples. He opposed gay marriage, but he was not a bigot” sound to the left a lot like this:
“[Whoever] made it abundantly clear that he liked, respected, and valued his Black colleagues and customers, and that he would continue the [business’s] progressive policies when it comes to insurance and other benefits for interracial couples. He opposed interracial marriage, but he was not a bigot.”
No you and I know there’s no real equivalence there, but for the progressive left, there is. To them, opposition to SSM really is outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. I don’t think there’s any real possibility of compromise here, and I’m very pessimistic about the future. The culture war is only going to get worse, and I don’t see it getting better.
I understand where you’re coming from, Ivan, but I’m trying to be optimistic. Like the article I linked in the previous comment illustrates, there are a decent number of liberal, pro-SSM folks out there who understand that interracial marriage and SSM are not interchangeable.
Will their views win out? I don’t know. I’ve been saying for years that the real danger of the SSM proponents wasn’t SSM itself, as a policy. It was the rhetoric they embraced. Hopefully folks realize that the arguments were extremist and irrational, but… yeah.
I understand where your concern comes from.