The racist rants of Donald Sterling, still (and possibly for some time to come) the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball Association, gave rise to a unified national position that this man should no longer be allowed to own and manage an NBA franchise. Somewhat lost in all the furor about Sterling were questions about whether taking action against Sterling could lead to calls for similar action against other NBA owners whose views might be offensive to some or to many. Richard DeVos, billionaire owner (is that redundant?) of the Orlando Magic, might present the first test case for further NBA social activism.
Sterling’s remarks, however reprehensible, were made in a private conversation and presumably not intended for the public domain. Whether California’s laws pertaining to the recording and disclosure of conversations without the consent of all participants were in fact violated in Sterling’s particular factual situation remains to be seen. Of course, the NBA may take disciplinary action against Sterling regardless of the legality of the disclosures and regardless of the expectation of privacy by each participant in the conversation involving Sterling.
Let’s look at a situation where an owner’s views are revealed publicly and openly, not privately. DeVos, owner of the Orlando Magic, for years has been vocal in his opposition to gay marriage. Please see this article (“What About NBA’s Homophobe Owner?”) for one writer’s views and for an interesting quote from DeVos about AIDS. It should be noted, as this article explains, that DeVos has never suggested that gays not be allowed to attend Magic games. In addition, it has been reported that DeVos welcomed gay and lesbian groups to attend a Magic game when Jason Collins, the only openly gay player in the NBA, and his Brooklyn Nets visited Orlando.
I was intrigued by the title to this article, “First They Came For The Vulgar Racist…” The author refers to remarks made by writer Charles Pierce on a PBS broadcast, when Pierce suggested that the NBA examine the appropriateness of DeVos as an NBA owner.
In response, this article notes: “Why would making the NBA “a place for everyone” require purging it of Rich DeVos? What dystopian novel do we live in when a respected writer suggests that a sports commissioner scold an 88-year-old rags-to-riches Christian billionaire for supporting a position affirmed by 62 percent of voters in his basketball team’s state and 59 percent of the voters in his blue-state birth state?”
The issue of same-sex marriage is far from settled among American citizens. There is a large segment of America that would share the view expressed by DeVos regarding same-sex marriage, and a large segment of America that would disagree with DeVos’s opinion. Do the critics of DeVos’s views on same-sex marriage have claim to the moral high ground on which to launch an effort to dislodge him as an NBA owner, absent any showing that DeVos has discriminated against Magic employees or fans, or anyone for that matter, on the basis of their sexual preferences? Will future prospective NBA owners find themselves faced with a vetting process similar to that of a Supreme Court justice?
I doubt NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has any interest in serving as the moral arbiter of the NBA owners, a group to which he reports. Donald Sterling was in effect low-hanging fruit, an easy and unsympathetic target, and the NBA players were collectively furious with Sterling’s remarks. If there has been any concern expressed by NBA players about DeVos’s views on same-sex marriage, I am not familiar with it.
So what can the NBA do, and what if anything should it do, in the case where one of its owners expresses an opinion, and financially supports that opinion, concerning an issue that is emotional and controversial? The DeVos family has contributed significant amounts of money in various political campaigns in opposition to same-sex marriage proposals, but to date nobody has claimed there was anything illegal about those contributions.
It will be interesting to follow the extent to which the NBA, and other professional sports, address societal issues in the future. The NFL, for example, has in essence endorsed the ability of the Washington Redskins owner to name his team whatever he wants, regardless of the name’s offensiveness to many. Regardless of the sport involved, perhaps a key component in any future issue will be the measure of anger expressed by the players in that league, especially the superstars.
I welcome any comments at mike.gilleran@gmail.com. Thanks.
