Michelle S. Lee ’16
Associate Editor | Managing Editor
I’m not a big basketball fan. I don’t have a favorite team (I barely succumbed to Linsanity at its peak). Before starting Smith I thought March Madness was a football reference. So it must be big news if even someone like me hears that Clippers owner Donald Sterling told his girlfriend, 50 years his junior, not to associate with black people in public.
To be precise, Sterling did say his girlfriend, known only as “V. Stiviano,” could do whatever she wanted with them in private, just not on Instagram. And just like that, sponsors quickly dropped out of the picture. Players showed solidarity by wearing matching red jerseys and black arm bands. And of course, the National Basketball Association banned Sterling for life and charged him a $2.5 million fine. Which is laudable. But is it legal?
Sure, it was a private phone call, but it’s embarrassing for the owner of a predominantly African American basketball team to express segregation-era levels of disdain. Nowadays discrimination suits come in the form of systematic, yet subtle, representations of prejudicial behavior. But here is a blatantly racist comment.
Though I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the NBA responded so quickly, the decision has no legal bearing over Sterling. Banning him from the NBA and limiting his control were well within the rights and power of the NBA, a private enterprise. The fine, on the other hand, Sterling is not obliged to pay. Past owners of sports teams have paid their fines, but that doesn’t mean Sterling has to. And if he doesn’t, he’s suspended for life anyway. The fine plays a significant role in the symbolic backing of anti-discrimination on or off the basketball courts, but isn’t actually enforceable in judicial ones.
California wiretapping law prohibits recording any private phone call when not consented to by both parties. Particularly disgusting was that this was a private conversation – how could he say that? At least in terms of privacy rights, it was mostly because he could say that.
For a man with a net worth of roughly $2 billion, Sterling may as well just pay the fine and not undergo the legal hassle of proving this in a lawsuit against the NBA (though they were not the ones who wiretapped his phone, they would not have sufficient evidence for transgressing his right to contract). But one of the few things people generally value over money is pride, and where is pride so ostentatiously displayed as in sports games?
What would have made a less precarious yet equally effective impact would have been action from the players themselves. NBA players are also members of the National Basketball Players’ Association. Their silent protest – not wearing their team’s logo and sporting black arm bands – was a commendable effort in civil solidarity. The National Labor Relations Act protects their right to protest, to strike. They are financially secure and supported by fans and sponsors alike. It would have been a strong gesture for the team, who Sterling’s racist remarks most directly affected, to protest against their “boss” by staging a sit-in.
But now that the NBA has issued its own decision, a protest at this point comes off as excessive. Even the decision itself has been debated between the public, and protestors have to pick their battles. And it’s very possible that this story will subside as live basketball games slowly take precedence over behind-the-scenes action. In any event, the NBA’s clear decision was a symbolic victory against discrimination – as for the rest, we’ll just have to wait and see.
