The Scope of Free Speech

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
           Noam Chomsky

In recent weeks, a row has emerged from the owner of the National Basketball Association’s Los Angeles Clippers – Donald Sterling.  He’s the longest serving owner in the NBA but due to a couple of well-publicized incidents, he has often been thought of (when he was thought of) as a buffoon.  Last week, a secretly recorded tape showcased Mr. Sterling’s backward thinking and racism.  In the aftermath, the commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver, banned him for life and is attempting to force the sale of his club to the league so that they may seek a more suitable owner.  As ridiculous as Mr. Sterling’s comments were, I’m confused and alarmed by the action taken and the players’ reaction to the owner.

There are two major things about this whole fiasco that bother me.  The first is the nature of the comments and the league’s reaction to the same.  So that my affiliation is clear, I don’t subscribe to Mr. Sterling’s point of view.  He is like the drunk uncle at family gatherings whose embarrassing paradigm is stuck about sixty years in the past.  That said, the NBA’s actions are a bit dangerous to me.  In my perfect world, people like Mr. Sterling are taken care of by the market and its refusal to patronize his product.  However, not many people, let alone sports fans, have the courage of their convictions when their “team” is the question.  So, they want somebody else to do something.  In steps the commissioner.  

Mr. Silver laid down the law that Donald Sterling’s words, secretly recorded in the privacy of his own home, are grounds for immediate and indefinite suspension.  However, my problem has to do with the basis for the commissioner’s actions.  As Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban said, it is not against the law to be stupid and backwards.  So, what is the fallout if you make it a crime?  Some might say, what is wrong with taking action against a racist?  The problem is that it seldom stops there.  History shows us that people with the power to control the masses begin with the agreed upon.  People feel comfortable with the first salvos – who is going to defend the actions of a racist?  Yet, it is a slippery slope and I’m concerned about the precedent set.   

The other matter that I do not understand is the reaction from the players and observers.  It seems we are giving way too much attention to the thoughts and actions of an 80-year-old, publically insignificant figure that people wrote off as a joke years ago.  Players turning their jersey inside out in protest – I want to know the individual who, prior to, connected the name “Clippers” only to Donald Sterling and not the men on the court.  Players emotionally declared the level of hurt and pain this has caused.  Unfortunately, it is likely these young men have suffered in the past from racism.  This is the worst?  The private ramblings of a marginalized man has caused this much distress and emotion?  I would suggest to you this man has never been given so much attention in his life.   

I don’t have the answer to racism.  Yet the attention paid to Mr. Sterling is disproportionate to its impact.  Additionally, when an organization can punish thought and privately expressed thought at that, what does that mean?  As a Jew, I learned early that even the neo-Nazis should be able to speak their mind publicly.  Forbidden speech is emboldened speech.  The protection of speech, certainly what is said in the privacy of one’s home, is paramount in a free society.  Racists and others of their ilk, in a free society, will face condemnation and marginalization.  The actions of the NBA commissioner borders on the tyranny of the majority and in the end could prove just as destructive as the racists.    

What Some Don't Understand

In recent years, bullying has become a major issue within American education.  This past week, it has dominated headlines in America’s number one sport – professional football.  Miami Dolphins’ offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team without explanation and over this last week, it has been determined that teammate Richie Incognito was the reason.  Evidence emerged that Mr. Incognito sent some pretty vile texts and tweets to his teammate.  This seems to have been done with the acknowledgement of the coaching staff in order to toughen up Mr. Martin.  While outsiders have jumped to the defense of the offended, there is a dynamic with which few critics are familiar. 

One of the developments is the near complete lack of support for Mr. Martin coming from his former teammates.  I believe this to be the product of team, not individual, thinking.  Mr. Martin has taken something in-house out into the public – a public that neither can or wants to consider the team context.  A team works on the basis of trust.  A part of that trust is an understanding that the internal conflicts do not become public fodder.  Critics might suggest that people like Mr. Incognito thrive on that type of culture but it is that type of culture which creates the fidelity and fraternity that are instrumental toward team success.  

Then, there is the issue of hazing or initiation that is often present in group or team dynamics.  Such things are quite common and serve a group purpose.  A newcomer into a group must quickly understand the values of the group and integrate into the relationships.  Doing this shows a commitment to the group, the people within and the goals of the group.  Typically, everyone has done something that serves as an initiation and they oversee the process for newcomers.  As a member of the military, I went through various traditions and I’ve doled them out as well.  The purpose is never to hurt necessarily but to ascertain the character of the person seeking entrance into our team.  This is not a capricious concern but one that could determine our future success or failure.  If one has never been a part of this type of relationship, it might seem strange, even sadistic, but it serves a purpose.   

The other feature to all of this is the proposed racism involved.  When I was in the military (certainly a team environment), the teasing and needling was part of the bonding.  It is too early to tell if this is really racism or not.  I would suggest it is not always racism but the absence of racism.  Race meant nothing to my platoon – everyone was called everything.  As a Jew, I was called a kike and Heb and Holocaust jokes were slipped in frequently.  Whether you were a redneck, Asian, Hispanic or black, there was not a label or slander not heard.  In these types of environments, race means nothing and therefore the words mean nothing.  One’s worth is based simply on what one contributes to the group.  Words based off this were the ones that hurt – if you were called a slacker or weak.  People outside these groups cannot understand but that is the reality.  When the individual no longer matters, one’s ability to fit into and work within the group is all important. 

There is a good chance that Mr. Incognito is just a jerk and a racist (the kind that typically gets weeded out in a true team environment).  This article is not in defense of him or what he allegedly has done.  What I do defend is the group/team culture.  This can sometimes include things considered unacceptable in the outside world.  I cannot make “civilians” understand because they never will unless in that position.  Yet a system cannot be punished simply because others do not understand.  There is value here and such teams or groups have changed the world (or brightened an occasional weekend).  We would all do well to reflect on that. 

What’s in a Name?

Since the 1990s, various sports teams at all levels have gone through a transformation.  These teams were among those who had, as a nickname, some reference to Native Americans.  While various tribes have authorized some use as legitimate or while others benefit from their ambiguous names, others still find themselves in the crossfire.  Throughout the controversy, one team has been more criticized than others – the National Football League’s Washington Redskins.  While the pinnacle of opposition coincided with the team’s appearance in the Super Bowl in the early 1990s, there have been renewed attempts, namely the Oneida tribe, to convince the team’s ownership to change.  

There are three types of Native American-connected names the subject of debate over the last several decades.  One dealt with teams whose names are a direct reference to a tribe such as schools like the Utah Utes, Florida State Seminols and Eastern Michigan Chippawas.  The second are those who use as their moniker more indistinct names that do not reference a particular tribe such as MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks and NBA’s Golden State Warriors.  The last category are those who have used names that have either an obvious or vague racist tones such as the Redmen of St. John’s University, the Louisiana-Monroe Indians and the aforementioned Washington Redskins.  St. John’s and Louisiana-Monroe have changed their names but the football team that calls the nation’s capital its home has stood resolute. 

I do believe that racism exists and I do believe that the Washington Redskins are on the wrong side of this issue.  Its name is clearly a reference to the more racist connotations of days gone by.  Having said that, I’m reluctant to mandate a change.  In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used his muscle to force the Washington to accept black players, the last NFL team to do so.  A combination of political and economic forces compelled the team to do what public opinion did not.  However, if Washington changes its name, it must come from the marketplace.  I mentioned in an earlier article about the Boy Scouts of America that I feel a little queasy when organizations or individuals are forced to do something.  This is no different but I understand the backstory. 

For Native Americans, their recent history is one of societal, economic and political subjugation.  They have endured racism and worse, near ethnic annihilation.  Since the heyday of the Native American civil rights movement and the militancy of groups like the American Indian Movement (AIM), activists have tried to right wrongs.  For the most part, the American public has agreed and has supported changes that favor America’s indigenous population.  However, groups like AIM have not always been disciplined in their attacks and have subsequently unleashed their efforts on things that are questionable.  Therefore, when a real case emerges or a real argument is put forth, people have begun to tune it out.  This could be the case with the Washington Redskins.  

I don’t believe the team or its administrative staff are racists nor does it have a predilection towards racist overtones.  Yet, it would be better if Washington changed its name.  The Oneida tribe has made it clear that they are going to protest and push until the organization does so.  However, the fans have not been a part of the chorus, at least to the point where they have chosen not to attend games or purchase merchandise.  If the Oneida tribe can do what many other activists could not do – convince the fans that this is a racial issue – so be it and we are probably better off for it.  If they can’t, the name should remain the same.   

The American Dilemma

In 1964, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Civil Rights Act.  In short, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, religion and gender.  It was the culmination of decades of work by civil rights activists and a step towards a promise fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Since the passage of the law, the country has tried to live up to the best intentions of the act.  Perhaps, the country’s measure of progress is highlighted by the actions of “civil rights’ leaders” on issues of little racial importance.   

In light of the Treyvon Martin case, the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the context in which both transpired, we have a classic example of what has happened to the civil rights’ movement.  More importantly, we have an idea of what has happened to its standard bearers.  To put succinctly, the civil rights’ activists have turned what is not racism into racism and have turned a blind eye to the true issues that face the black community.  To exemplify their lack of interests in solving real issues and in the midst of all of the protests, gesticulations and prognostications, there is a demand for a “conversation” on race.  Generally, when someone tells me there needs to be a conversation, it is never a true conversation they seek.  What they seek is a one-way channel of dogma to be digested and swallowed whole.  Anything short of that and the labels come out, be it racist or whatever.   

Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who built his career as a racial ambulance chaser, throwing out racist epithets toward Jews and other groups, has somehow, by the media and other interested parties, been re-cast as an arbiter of racial harmony, justice and equality.  None of his actions seem to support that image.  Mr. Sharpton’s power stems from the continuation of outrage and victimhood, following a two-step process.  First, he turns his rage upon things that has little to do with racial justice or equality, such as the Duke lacrosse team rape fiasco or George Zimmerman.  The real threat, in his mind, lies outside the community and not within.  Second, he continues the role of outraged speaker, stoking and maintaining support by not focusing on the community.  In short, his support is based on finding fault with others.  Fortunately, not all black leaders have been so detached.

Actor, comedian and activist Bill Cosby has drawn much criticism for his remarks about how the black community needs to get its own house in order.  He has gone after parents who are failing in their job in raising their children.  He has attacked the black community for accepting that which denigrates them such as certain entertainment and community standards (teen pregnancy, single-parent homes and some music).  He has further faulted its leaders for not calling enough attention to the problems tearing at the fabric of black society.  In recent weeks, there has been much attention drawn to the fact that since Trayvon Martin was killed, hundreds of black youths were killed in Chicago alone at the hands of other black youth.  However, Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about that.  There is no “day of outrage” or mass demonstrations throughout the country on this subject.  There are no speeches, no threats of boycotts on the city (as Mr. Sharpton has threatened on Florida) and no bombastic charges about the threat the city poses to the black community. 

Ultimately, tactics used by men like Mr. Sharpton are counter-productive – certainly for the black community.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that destructive means cannot create constructive ends.  However, the politics being played by the good reverend as hysteria over reason and thought have held the black community back, creating a perpetual victimhood mindset.  It has also created a national atomism that can be ultimately destructive for the country as a whole.  Let me be clear.  There are real examples of racism that need to be dealt with and done so in a way that fixes the problem and does not exacerbate already high emotions.  One who deals with racism must also keep the legacy of past leaders in mind.  They can do this by rationally addressing real concerns and not focusing on trivial (from a racial point of view) matters that only stoke fear and distrust. 

The Renewed Battle for States’ Rights

Historically, South Carolina seldom misses a chance to rebel against federal intrusion. From the Tariff of 1828, to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the 1948 states’ rights showdown with the Truman administration that formed the Dixiecrats, South Carolina has a collective, engrained sense of obdurateness that has done much to characterize the state. This week, as Republican candidates vie for the nomination of their party, the state has passed a law requiring the showing of photo identification prior to voting. To most states and many countries around the world, this might not seem strange or unusual, but in the United States and to the Justice Department, this is a malevolent attempt to keep minorities from voting.

Critics of such legislation have suggested that the cry for states’ rights is code for racism and that the law demanding photo identification will unfairly impact minority groups. First, no one linked race with respect to the identification card, code or otherwise, until the law’s opponents and the Obama administration did. Second, their assertion that only minorities will be impacted smacks of real racism. Why would minorities be adversely affected more than anyone else? They claim the cost of photo identification is prohibitive but if that is the case, would not any poor person, minority or otherwise, be equally affected? So, are we talking about race or economics? According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, the cost of a simple photo identification card in South Carolina is $5. Would not many declare the assertion that minorities could not afford $5 as racist? As seen in many political scenarios, the quickest way to shut down a conversation is to throw race into the debate.

What if the government paid for the identification card? Would opponents to the law and the Justice Department acquiesce? Given the level of vociferous condemnation, it seems unlikely. Therefore, what is the argument about? Regardless of their true intent, I’m not sure how much traction the Justice Department and opponents to the law can garner. Most Americans do not see an issue with asking for a photo identification to vote. Considering that countries ranging from the most dysfunctional electoral processes to the most advanced democracies use identification cards, there seems little that opponents can legitimately say without seeming capricious and irrational.

I’ve always thought that claims that certain laws adversely impact only minorities were a bit racist on their accord. This seems blatantly so. What about the idea of pulling together $5 over seven months is inherently prejudicial towards minorities? What about the process of getting said card beyond the money is particularly injurious towards minorities? It would seem that people should be more offended by the attack on the law than the law itself. This is not a question of policy; it is a question of race politics. It diminishes those who engage in it and the real examples of racism.