Does an organizational or employment agreement extend into one's home and restrict one's speech within? Are we creating a system in which someone dismissed from a professional position is also fined for violating such an agreement?
by John
Tyburski
Copyright © I Need Politics, Tony Alexiou. All rights
reserved.
All of the
major news outlets are abuzz with the Donald Sterling racist comments scandal and
although readers are surely aware of the story, a brief recap may be helpful. Eighty-year-old
billionaire owner of National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Los Angeles
Clippers Donald Sterling, who is married to Rochelle Stein, said some
disapproving things in private to his young mistress about “associating with
black people.” The mistress, 31-year-old Los Angeles resident V. Stiviano,
audio-recorded the conversation and without Sterling’s knowledge somehow let
the tape find its way to the website TMZ.
I will not quote Sterling’s comments in full as they are available elsewhere.
In fact, a simple complaint about associating with a particular ethnicity is appalling
in its own right. In other words, we do not need to see any more of the
conversation to be upset.
Once TMZ and another website, Deadspin, made the recordings public, a
firestorm ensued that even had President Obama commenting on it while overseas.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, in only his third month on the job, concluded
that Sterling was in violation of NBA policies and made a quick, firm decision.
Sterling is banned for life from the NBA, and the league is exploring its
options for making him sell the team. Sterling was also fined $2.5 million, the
proceeds of which will be distributed among organizations advocating for
nondiscrimination.
The negative
implications of having a white racist team owner in the NBA should be obvious
and although I could not find a source for bylaws or a code of conduct for
owners, the NBA makes its position on discrimination apparent in their Licensee and Supplier Code of Conduct. It is common sense today that discrimination based on race
is unacceptable, and nearly all organizations and enterprises have in place specific
public statements on discrimination. In a strictly legal sense, racially biased
speech uttered in private may or may not constitute a violation of
nondiscrimination policy, and I anticipate that this will be a card that
Sterling plays, if he goes to battle with the NBA over whether he has to sell
his team. Regardless, the NBA has clearly made known that it harbors no place
for racism within the organization, and I applaud Silver’s swift, severe, and
certain resolution to the problem.
But here’s
the tricky part. What is the fine for? I get the ban, and I completely agree
with it. I am completely supportive of the right of an organization to create
and maintain a culture of mutual respect and inclusion. But I cannot find in
either Silver’s official statement
or in an article on the NBA’s website about the decision exactly why the fine was imposed. The closest
explanation I could find is that Silver meted “out a punishment he believed
would satisfy outraged players and fans.” Again, I abhor racism, but Sterling made his comments
in private to someone with no association with the NBA. Is it not possible,
however tasteless and offensive, that these comments fall under the protection
of free speech afforded to everyone in this country under the First Amendment
of our Constitution? Do we have the right to fine people for what they say?
My concern
here is not at all to defend racism. Racism has no place in a society that
affirms and celebrates the inherent value of the individual. Racism has no
place in the NBA. Neither am I at all concerned about Sterling’s wherewithal to
pay the $2.5 million fine. My concern is with whether in the future any
organization that fires one of its members for speech with which it disapproves
will fine or seize assets belonging to the one being fired. If they do in order
to satisfy an angry mob, then I must say it seems a bit capricious. It is
capricious to allow our emotions to determine the severity of a punishment.
I took an
enormous risk even touching this subject, let alone offering any sort of dissension
on any particulars of the proceedings. I implore my readers to do one thing. Consider
all that I have written, restrain emotions, and remain intellectually engaged
with all that has happened. Then yes, please decide whether I am right or wrong
about the $2.5 million fine and any precedent it sets. I may be wrong and if I
am, then please examine my words and understand that it is because I disagree
with a part of how this case was handled, not because I believe racism is excusable.
I am simply concerned about the fine and whether it sets a general precedent of
also fining those we fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment