We previously discussed the racist comments of Clippers owner Donald Sterling. We discussed the possible sanctions under the NBA rules, which are confidential. This afternoon NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that Clippers owner Donald Sterling will be suspended for life and fined $2.5 million. That blows away any prior sanction of the NBA.
Silver announced “I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers association or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, he may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or decisions involving the team.” That is pretty much a demand that he sell the team though he could use his general manager for some of those functions.
The $2.5 million fine will be donated to anti-discrimination organizations, which is a particularly nice touch.
I have little sympathy for Sterling and found his comments deeply disturbing and unsettling. However, it will be interesting to see if Sterling, who is a lawyer, will fight the fine. He is being banned and fine for private comments that he did not intend to be released publicly. While this is not the government (raising first amendment issues), it is a free speech questions. We have been discussing how government employees like teachers and police officers have been punished for statements and activities in their private lives. I have opposed that trend. In this case, Sterling did not even intend for this comments to go to anyone other than his girlfriend.
The question is where the line is drawn on private comments. No one would suggest sanctions Larry Johnson for (after the Sterling comments) reportedly called for all-black teams and league or his prior comments calling players “rebellious slaves.” He was clearly upset with the news and venting on social media. I understand that. Indeed, his call for some black owners of NBA team is understandable given this controversy and reflects a long-standing objection to the paucity of black owners in the NBA. Yet, those were intended to be public comments and might be viewed as offensive by white players or owners or fans. If the NBA rules extend to private communications, I am curious as to how it distinguishes between comments both public and private. When it comes to free speech, we tend to favor bright line rules but this is a rule that is neither published nor clear. Sterling may be the easy case due to the vile nature of these comments but Silver does not address the standard that has been and will be applied to owners and players.
The counter to this argument is that, as a NBA owner, Sterling agreed to comply with the rules, including the undisclosed rules of conduct. His comments clearly created an embarrassment for the NBA and other teams. Yet, my guess is that these rules are vaguely worded and this sanction is far beyond prior punishments. He probably could challenge it under contractual and even anti-trust theories.
In the end, he is being banned for being a racist (which he vehemently denies). However, if he did not act in a racist manner to the team or fans, should his private views be the basis for a ban. What is owners are anti-gay or anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim in private? Can they all be banned if a third party reveals their views or a private conversation surfaces?
What do you think?
Chuck – would you please rescue at least one of my sets of quotes from Hoffer?
whocare – I think you are being uncivil, but that is just my considered opinion as one who has had his hands spanked for less.
That said, I am going to take your side (partially) on the original argument. There are professors who have walked the walk of poverty. I had a mentor when I first stated teaching who spent the summers picking crops with migrants. I had another one who spent the summers getting myriad MAs, I have no idea how many the guy ended up with.
So, there are people, like your professor, who picked cotton and was possibly dirt poor and then there are those who followed the silver spoon route through college.
feynman:
Ray Kroc was a milkshake machine salesman if I remember correctly and saw McDonalds as something he could franchise.
I was saying you can make money flipping burgers if you own a restaurant(s).
Many McDonalds owners worked for franchisees at some point.
I guess you could say there was some figurative in my statement but also some litteral.
Help Help Help the spam monster ate 2 set of Eric Hoffer’s brilliant words
There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.
Dr. Stanley:
Eric Hoffer is an exception but he hasnt been at Berkley for many years.
Dr. Stanley
Wonderful aphorisms!
Thank you.
Byron,
I just read a bit about Ray Kroc. I don’t think he got his start flipping burgers. He went into it as a franchising agent. He wasn’t a kid. Or were you just speaking (very) figuratively?
Eric Hoffman:
It was the craving to be a one and only people which impelled the ancient Hebrews to invent a one and only God whose one and only people they were to be
It is doubtful if the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and power — power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors; they want to retaliate.
For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.
There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7854
Eric Hoffer:
http://www.hofferproject.org/HPhoffer.html
I rest my case
Sh/be Why is an advisory board so much scarier than an insurance company?
Annie,
Pre ACA, I thought insurance companies were often denying procedures, and new technologies. Think liver transplants; although that fight is probably over now that they are more standard. And they would deny some new medication or surgery because it was too cutting edge. Also, the newer medication or device may be denied because they are so incredibly expensive and not that much better than the older standard.
I thought that happened ALL the time. Why is an advisory board so much scarier than IPAB? Rhetorical question. Once I have the time to go over our conversation, I bet you will have answered it.
Byron,
You’ve been around for the rodeo before. Just sit it out, make your point and ignore all else stupid….
Byron, Trolls are loaded for bear on anyone right of center. They are changing names, trolling, and flopping. The minority need to be Boy Scouts in the short run. I think it’s worthwhile, the house is getting cleaned up. If the guy persists, email Jonathan.
whocares:
I did not bait you, you came in and insulted me. I didnt insult you.
What is the class? You dont need to tell me, I looked at the Berkley Catalog and can guess.
Annie,
Thanks for sticking around. Sorry I lost Karen.
Cleanup on aisle 3!
Karen
Close to a majority of Americans hate Obamacare. Some of those people are Democrats who wanted Single Payer. Many who hate Obamacare, like what’s in it.