I realized that the Donald Sterling controversy was going to be a full-blown ethics train wreck when, as I should have predicted but didn’t, President Obama once again tossed his office, authority and power into a completely non-governmental matter that his involvement could only confound, and can’t possibly help. “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk,” the President responded during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, after being asked about Sterling’s alleged remarks. At least he didn’t say that V. Stiviano, the NBA owner’s mistress who recorded the comments, could have been his daughter.
This continues a pattern, exemplified by the President’s gratuitous statements as the Trayvon Martin case was unfolding, of Obama being willfully ignorant of the injustice done when the President of the United States uses his bullhorn to warp independent investigations before they are complete, and attempts to sway public opinion in matters outside his proper duties. The NBA is currently examining the circumstances of Sterling’s statements, and Obama’s irresponsible interjections can do nothing but upset the process. He simply cannot or will not restrain himself. My view: this stuff is easy, an approximation of being Presidential for a leader who is foundering in dealing with the important, legitimate challenges of his job. It is an expression of weakness.
Meanwhile, it is increasingly likely that, in classic ethics train wreck fashion, everyone connected to and responding to this episode is or will be tainted. Sterling’s girlfriend, for example, broke the law: California is a state like Maryland ( Hello, Linda Tripp, wherever you are!) and others, where it is illegal to record anyone without their consent. Her motives were also despicable: reputedly she had vowed vengeance because Sterling’s wife (oh, yes, her sugar-daddy is still married) has sued her for embezzlement. His wife calls her a gold-digger; perhaps that is unfair, and perhaps she really loves the 80-year-old evident racist for the purity of his soul and vitality in the sack rather than his bank account, just as I may be secretly a bighorn sheep. But the incident roiling the worlds of sports and culture is clearly the product of domestic warfare and at least two thoroughly awful people.
Now the NBA is shocked–shocked!—that Sterling isn’t the salt of the earth. Please. Sterling’s character had been unmasked many times, just not so flashily. He paid a record $2.75 million in settlement of a federal housing discrimination lawsuit alleging that Sterling and his wife made statements “indicating that African-Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants and that they preferred Korean tenants.” He was unsuccessfully sued for wrongful termination by former general manager and permanent African-American Elgin Baylor, who claimed, among other things, that Sterling once said, “I would like to have a white Southern coach coaching poor black players,” and testified that Sterling would bring women into the locker room to gaze at his players’ “beautiful black bodies.” These were all just allegations, of course, but NBA owners knew what the man was like, and willfully let him be a member of their club. Now, he’s suddenly not an appropriate face for a sport dominated by African-Americans; on Sterling’s own team, the Clippers, there isn’t a single white player. His was never an appropriate face; his face wouldn’t be an appropriate face for a Girl Scout troop, a school board or any other organization that placed ethical values over money.
Next up in the train wreck, the NAACP, which is scheduled to honor Sterling next month, presumably for race-based philanthropy and thus what he has done, rather than what he thinks. I’m sure that honor will soon be denied, but should it be? As I pointed out in the previous post on Sterling, what matters in ethics are actions, not thoughts. I would guess that Jimmy Carter was our first non-racist President; should we blow up Mount Rushmore? One of the most important aspects of the new ethics train wreck is the proliferation of statements like this one, by Washington Post sportswriter Jason Reid:
“Any person who holds the views expressed by the male voice on the tape should not continue to reap financial reward from an industry whose workforce is overwhelmingly African-American.”
Wrong. This is America, and he can hold any views he chooses. Sterling built the Clippers, and invested in the team that makes millionaires out of black athletes. As long as his “views” don’t harm the team, the league or his employees, they are neither unethical nor disqualifying. It is the communication of those views and the dissemination of them that disqualify him, just as the Gallaudet diversity officer was disqualified by the revelation that she opposed same-sex marriage.
This provides the opening for the false analogizers to board the train.
“Right now, many are demanding Sterling be sanctioned, many more want him to be forced to sell the Clippers,” writes David Badish. “But shouldn’t Andrew Sullivan, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins, AEI fellow Charles Murray, Legal Insurrection blogger William A. Jacobson, former GOP chair Ken Mehlman, Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh, Slate’s Will Saletan, and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, among many others, voice support for Sterling? Shouldn’t they be rushing to his defense? They all certainly were defending Brendan Eich just a few weeks ago.”
As was I. That is because…
- Nothing Eich had said or done indicated unequivocal bias against gays.
- His contribution to the anti-gay marriage forces in California occurred six years ago, in the midst of a massive cultural upheaval, and was not necessarily reflective of his current beliefs.
- Opposition to same-sex marriage, while misguided, can be attributed to religious belief and support for the traditions of marriage, and does not require or suggest homophobia and bigotry.
- The boycott of his company proposed by OKCupid was justified as punishment and revenge.
- Had Eich ever been shown to have uttered derogatory statements about gays equivalent to the statements attributed to Sterling regarding blacks, the analogy would be valid. He has not.
And then there is this, from rapper Snoop Dogg, who calls Sterling a “bitch-ass redneck, white bread, chicken s**t mother f***er.” Yes, the best way to condemn racists and condemn racism is by using racist epithets.
The news media has just gotten started, but it will be boarding this train wreck soon, if it hasn’t already. I turned off “Meet the Press” when the first guest commentator introduced to opine on this issue was …Al Sharpton.
_____________________________
Sources: Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, TMZ, ESPN, New Civil Rights Movement
Ethics Alarms 
So hands off Sterling, because he merely spoke racist things and didn’t “do” anything racist…
but hands off Eich, because he merely threw $1000 against gay rights but didn’t speak any slurs against gay people?
At the time Eich contributed, gay marriage wasn’t a right-–still isn’t, in fact. He was voting for the status quo. The President, now taking shots at Sterling, was in the same camp, as a matter of record, as Eich. Eich didn’t make a single derogatory statement against gays, nor could his contribution be taken that way without some tangible evidence. Sterling, moreover, is in an indsutry actively promoting and highly dependent on blacks, so his attitudes on that particular topic is relevant to the business he is engaged in. That isn’t true of Eich either. If he were the head of, say, Actor’s Equity, the analogy would have some validity.
Yes, there is a large, tangible, material difference. I view the refusal to acknowledge the difference as intellectually dishonest.
If there’s such a big difference, why do you take the same position on both matters? (I can understand about Eich more than Sterling.)
I re-read the article to confirm that you do, and I found myself even more disgusted by your slight-of-hand defense of him as someone who has merely said and not done racist things, even as you see the evidence that yes, his prior outright racist actions have harmed the team and others.
And yeah, he probably should have gotten in hot water before, but does that mean no hot water is permitted now?
And yeah, all those presidents were racist, but do we limit ourselves to their standards because otherwise we’d have to blow up Mt Rushmore? Maybe “racist” should trump “president” here. If George Washington arrived in a time machine, I’d give him a year to get with the times or be considered a bigot. I avoid ancestor worship where possible.
He probably takes the same position because being a racist isn’t illegal, nor is donating to a citizen-sponsored ballot measure.
And people going on a witch hunt over speech, no matter what the form it takes, is bullshit and statist and the behavior of someone who doesn’t actually give a single fuck about Speech.
You do believe, don’t you, Scott, that Sterling’s spoken sentiments makes it functionally impossible for him to competently and effectively lead a franchise 100% of whose key employees are black? This isn’t political correctness. This pragmatism. Ditto his fans, though he can choose to lose money if he chooses. The problem is other teams lose along with him. Consequences.
I believe that his being a racist is not a revelation to his players, and they they like money.
If they want to stand on principle, good for them and I wish them well.
But I think that, at the end of the day, money will decide it for everyone.
There’s a difference, you will agree, between playing for a guy you know is or is probably racist (which arguably makes you tolerant, as long as he doesn’t act toward you in a racist fashion—it also could mean you are a venal, sell-out hypocrite) and continuing to play for someone everyone, including your friends and family, know is racist, and regards your race as unfit to be seen in public with his girlfriend.
First, I don’t think there were any non-black boyfriends for that girl besides the billionaire 80-year old.
Just a guess.
So I really do think that when he said “those black guys” he was saying “the guys who aren’t me”. If this is the case, I would probably agree with the “don’t bring them to the games” – having an open relationship is one thing, but having it thrown in your face where you work is another.
But that doesn’t matter to your question. The only thing that would matter to me is “does this affect my income”? If yes, then I would start speaking up.
How do you come to that bizarre conclusion? Eich was unfairly targeted, and Mozilla was cowardly and venal, but corporations are, and this one reasonably concluded that a controversial CEO was not in the company’s best interests. The NBA needs no boycott threats to conclude that Sterling is a detriment to the NBA, and has to be isolated and driven out if possible. One solution is unjust but probably unavoidable, the other is just and necessary. How are those the same position?
Can you read? I said Sterling needs to go. I said that his BELIEFS are not the reason, because his beliefs are his right and not harmful or unethical until they are translated into action. Baylor’s allegations were rejected in court. The NAACP has judged his civil rights support as exemplary. Read the first post. It’s clear. It is the communication of his beliefs that render him untrustworthy and unable to lead his franchise.
I apologize for misrepresenting your views. I read too much in some of your phrasing, as if you were taking a position like that of Scott Jacobs. My bad.
It also seems that the NAACP screwed up for not connecting the dots on this man before, since as you say his racism was indeed apparent to one and all. I’m just quick to reflexively defend them, because I sense that most of their opposition is of the mindset that “America isn’t racist any more, it never was, white people don’t have privilege for being white, in fact whites are the real victims today, and people of color like to cry racism all the time, summoning the PC Police to Suppress Thoughts that point to secret super-scientific truths about white superiority, not that I see race or anything.” It gets tiresome.
Denying racism is tiresome, and seeing racism where it isn’t is tiresome…and they keep feeding each other, which is really, really tiresome.
but same-sex marriage WAS a right in California at the time, Prop8 took that right away until it was overturned last year.
1. The post is not about same sex marriage.
2. Laws can be made and repealed. The only rights are those enumerated and assured in the Declaration and Constitution. gay marriage was originally and illegally allowed in the Golden State in defiance of existing law.
No it wasn’t and no it didn’t.
Stop getting your information from TPM and MMfA…
Regarding the NAACP and its likelihood not to honor him for his deeds now that his thoughts are public: It’s related, I think, to the naked teacher principle. They are not OBLIGATED to honor him, they could say “we abhor what he said and how he feels, but his actions speak for themselves and are worthy of gratitude in spite of that.” Still, given the spectacle and apparent racism (“apparent” because I don’t know if he’s claiming it wasn’t him on the tape, or if that’s plausible) he has exhibited, I can’t see how it’s wrong for them to say he’s just too much terrible publicity right now to chum up to.
Amendment: I meant to say they are not obligated to WITHDRAW the honor, but nor can they be blamed for doing so.
My favorite note was that he has apologized “for the remarks attributed to him.”
Hilariously, Al Sharpton is supposed to get honored the same night.
Jack, it’s long been clear how you feel about Obama weighing in on social issues, or news stories. Regardless, if he’s asked a question by the media, does he not have an obligation to respond? He didn’t call Sterling by name, and responded to the comments. Of all the times he’s weighed in, this seems the most benign.
Donald Sterling is a racist at best, a liar, and certainly a hypocrite. He’s entitled to hold whatever views he chooses. But the fact is, owns a team, and is part of a league where the work force, and a significant part of the management structure is African American. For him to hold such views, and seek to get rich on their backs, I wold think, meet your standard for ethical misbehavior. Is this not at least as pertinent as the behavior of Obama, the girlfriend (she is what she is, and we likely share the same view here) and those that have turned a blind eye to what Sterling has always been? You’ve rightly called him out in your blog post, but didn’t address the ethics of his behavior, regardless of how they’ve come to light.. And in the face of other recent events, I’m not sure that his lack of ethics is as apparent to the masses as it might be to you. Regardless of the ethical misdeeds of the periphery associated with this train wreck, he most certainly leads this pack.
The NBA is the only organization that he must answer to, and they’d be well within their rights to sanction him, including forcing him to sell the team, or remove him from day to day responsibility. While he’s an independent owner, it’s a franchise that he owns, and his behavior, just like that of the players, is subject to discipline by the league. He’ll get what he gets.
And last I checked, JJ Reddick is white, and a key member of the Clippers…
A wise president could (and usually would) say something along the lines of…”I have confidence that the NBA will determine what happened, and act appropriately. Next question…”
Which is a polite way of saying, “I’m not King of America, morons. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me.”
Right. You have my vote.
Just as well you vote for him…
You never would have liked my answer anyways.
Exactly.
I don’t think you understand what a “right” actually is.
Actually, I understand rights quite well. Sterling has a right to make a living. But there is no right to own a franchise, and hold views detrimental to the parent company. The NBA has a responsibility to safe guard the league for the good of all owners and players. If ones actions are seen as detrimental to that responsibility, they have a right to kick him out. Period….
They might be able to sanction him, they might be able to vote the Clippers out of the league (thought I doubt it), but I somehow suspect that the power to force him to dispose of his property falls ever so slightly out of their authority.
But please, tell me more about how people can force you to sell property you legally own and don’t want to sell.
Well, Marge Schott comes to mind…. http://reds.enquirer.com/1999/09/16/red_baseball_kicks_out.html
You didn’t actually read that link, did you?
The officials were powerless to compel a sale and it was in the face of possible criminal or civil penalties unrelated to her racist statements did she sell her ownership interests.
But please, again, I implore you how an individual can be forced to sell something they don’t want to…
Beat me to it. The League can make an owner so miserable that he or she wants to sell, but they can’t force a sale. It took years to get rid of Schott.
While a long shot, and without current precedent (at least that I can find while helping the wife with dinner!) it’s not out of consideration. A more likely outcome is financial and fan pressure that would lead to his selling or relinquishing control. The language in NBA owner agreements is not exactly known. But I did find this. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140426/donald-sterling-la-clippers-adam-silver-nba/
Fine. Fine the asshole who is too stupid to just hire hookers and tip them well to ensure their silence, and let the fans (btw, have you ever actually met a Clippers fan? I haven’t) call for him to go…
But don’t suggest for a second that, it would be either legal or ethical for the NBA to be able to force a sale…
And again, try reading the entire article you link to…
Seriously, stop proving my points for me.
I feel bad for you…
Even if there were a provision allowing a forced sale under rare and extraordinary circumstances, an attempt to call mere words, illegally recorded by others, such circumstances would be sure to trigger long and vigorous litigation, and I’d bet against the NBA.
Wouldn’t you?
I would take the case on contingency, because the NBA would end up paying a SHITLOAD of money to Sterling
As Al Capone would tell us, got is got. Do you really think that in the corporate culture we currently have, one racist owner is going to win against a corporate entity like the NBA and is sponsors? I realize that we’re talking a hypothetical case, but does it really matter how he exits? He needs to go, as you yourself have acknowledged Jack. He’ll be out of the news, and out of the NBA soon enough. I predict he’ll sell of his own accord and try to save some semblance of face.
Yes, because the law is still the law, you feckless shit. Horrible people win cases all the time, not because they are less horrible than their opponent but because the law is on their side.
Try and grasp that concept, ok?
Atta boy Scott. Name calling in what was an otherwise pretty good debate is really useful! If the point is to get a rise, or an equally stupid comment in return…sorry. Although Jack and I disagree on a number of issues, I continue to support him and this site because he, and a fair number of readers/commentors are able to see all sides of an argument and articulate what they believe or think in a manner that’s not disrespectful. It’s the only way we can disagree with each other without hating each other. So, I have a right to not engage with people that sit behind a computer and spew crap. I think I’ll exercise it.
In return?
Buddy, you made MULTIPLE mind-fuckingly stupid comments suggesting it would be perfectly fine to force a guy to sell something because you don’t like what he said.
I’m only responding in kind.
You should be right, RS…I hope so. I wonder, though. He finally has a good team. He built it. He’s a bona fide creep, and a billionaire, and those guys don’t like being pushed around. He’ll give a few mil to Sharpton, claim he was taken out of context (interesting theories in the comments here), and hope it blows over. Money buys a lot of redemption.
The “don’t bring them to the game” line sounds to me like “if you are going to bang guys beside me don’t bring them to the place I work”, and is way more understanding than I would be…
…except that it’s only the black guys she may be banging that he’s concerned about. Then there’s the theory that he doesn’t want her, his mistress, to be seen as black, but Latina, so he doesn’t want her showing her social circle on Instagram to be African American. Of course, that’s racist too, just a bit less ugly to some.
I suspect she doesn’t date many white guys…
Unless there are WAY more old white billionaires than I suspected…
Hmmm…a confidential constitution. So THAT’s what’s killing this country!
Here to hoping the contract gets entered into evidence so we can use PACER to finally see it…
Just to keep it up-to-date, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver just stated that a 3/4 vote by NBA owners could “remove him as an owner.”
They can take his property away with a 3/4 vote? Neat.
Yeah, that will be an AMAZING lawsuit…
I doubt they can get that—and I think the penalty for an overheard, surreptitiously recorded expression of opinion is so wildly out of proportion that it will be hard to defend. A lifetime ban? For saying, in theory, “don’t take pictures with black people, they clash with your eyes?” Wow.
Look, he said something that hurt feelings… Doesn’t he deserve whatever people think he deserves?
It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. So far, from the Tweets I’ve seen from players, fans, and others, there is much support for Silver’s sanctions. I’m interested in what Sterling will do with the ban and $2.5 million fine; fight it, or just accept it and hope the ruckus dies down with the next big news story.
“and I think the penalty for an overheard, surreptitiously recorded expression of opinion is so wildly out of proportion that it will be hard to defend.”
I’m not sure I agree that the penalty is simply for the “an overheard expression of opinion.” (and the girlfriend will be dealt with, and will lose) The penalty and it’s severity is because his privately held and perfectly legal beliefs are in such severe opposition to what the rest of the league, it’s players, fans and sponsors believe. As you’ve mentioned before, he can no longer be trusted by any of these groups, and they want him out. He’ll walk away with more than a billion dollars, but he’s done with basketball. Even if he sues, the lifetime ban will stand until the litigation over the forced sale is resolved. Like I said on Sunday, “got is got”. And they got him….
I can’t get past the fact that the guy is being fined millions and losing control over a business he bought and built because a private conversation that appears to have been based more on an old man’s feelings of sexual inadequacy than race were leaked to the press. As Bill Maher said—yes, I’m actually quoting that jerk—it’s still legal to be an asshole. How can this not chill free speech and non-conforming thought, RS? I agree, and said, that the League needs to be rid of him, and they do. You know, while private individuals can censor speech, the Constitution sets out model behavior as well as limits on government.
I think this is a very dangerous slippery slope.
So if in 20 years your brand if politics is reviled, and you get recorded secretly and the recording is put out there, you’d be OK with your single mist expensive item being taken from you?
And what is more, even if you do agree to sell it, you are only allowed to sell it to people we say is OK?
That sounds fair to you?
I completely see and am sensitive to the slippery slope analogy. Private speech need not be regulated. I get the argument and see where it might lead us. But I also think that right or wrong, the bigger issue here is the content of the speech in question, and the impact; financial cultural etc. that it has on those that Sterling is in business with. If the NBA didn’t exist, and the Clippers were the equivalent of an independent minor league baseball team, he couldn’t and wouldn’t be forced to sell, and could say and do whatever he pleased. The fans would validate his behavior and market forces would what held him accountable. But this is different because it’s a franchise that he owns, and as a result, his actions have the ability to financially impact his partners. Even they recognize that it’s a tough call, which is why a 3/4 vote against is required. The bottom line is, speech is not always free. And the wise NBA owner will be more careful about hateful hurtful language, knowing that they do in fact have something to lose.
I see this, but the league should let it play out, in respect for free speech. This is another sop to the mob. Let the fans stay away, let the sponsors bolt, let players quit, or boycott, let thousands of people do what they want. Organized, official, punitive action for illicitly revealed private speech? Is that really the American way? Or is it becoming the way?
Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe were suspended for life from baseball for threatening the integrity and credibility of the sport. I’m sure the NBA has a rule prohibiting public conduct that undermines the reputation of the league, but this wasn’t public. His comments to his mistress were 100% harmless to others, intended to be so, and would have been so absent her conduct in maliciously exposing them, harming him, his team, his relations with his players, public trust, and economic relations with the sponsors. He has to go. He does not have to be punished, fined, and have his business taken away as punishment for mere words and completely legal attitudes, though offensive. It is the unvarnished spectacle of an American being punished—not suffering natural consequences, but being punished—for what he said in private, and thinks. It’s dangerous, and I fear we will regret it.
Jack, I’m hoping that your issue is with the severity of the punishment and fine as opposed to the fact that he must be held accountable. The sanctions, as explained by the commissioner are within the authority of the NBA and its Board of Governors. Owning a franchise business is not like simply owning “any business”. The tradeoff in losing some of your individual freedoms (some, and not many given the history of sports owners being sanctioned for bad behavior versus players) is that you’re able to take advantage of the joint power a collective has. This includes access to sponsors and financial opportunities that you would not have in a stand alone environment. He had an obligation to his business partners that he has not lived up to. If the league were to “let it play out”, they’d be doing so at the risk of the groups money. This is not fair to the balance of the owners. I’m typically ready to stand on the side of righteousness and respect those that fight the good fight. But this is a losing effort. It’s simply a matter of the rights of an old racist asshole to be continue in the ultimate in unethical behavior, versus the rights of the collective to exclude him from their club. And while I share your distaste for how this came to light, and hope that the girlfriend is punished, (severely) if proven to be the source of the tape, as it relates to Sterling’s ability to continue as owner of the team, it’s of little consequence….
You know I think he should be held accountable. That’s what I wrote from the beginning. He needs to go, because he is an embarrassment, just as any executive who embarrasses his employer in a high profile way needs to resign or be fired. I do not see how anyone who thinks free speech and unfettered thought is a core American value, however, can support this kind of punitive action for a leaked private statement. Oh, I know why Silver felt he had to do it—because there was a feeding frenzy. He’s a coward.
I’ll be taking names of who, if anyone, will have the guts to point out how excessive and dangerous this is.
Jack,
I’ve just found one to add to your list. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/randazza-sterling-privacy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
I just read your previous post on Sterling, and am in line with much of your analysis. I do believe that there’s a difference between racism, and prejudice. Prejudice is understandable, and while having the same ethical impediment, is not as bad as racism, because racists have the ability and intention of harming those of another race. I view your former roomate as more prejudiced than racist…
That’s a good and useful distinction…and very applicable and fair to my room mate. There was no hate in him, and I believed, had he lived, he would have overcome his prejudice. He was too smart, fair and sensitive not to.
The precedents: http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-comprehensive-guide-to-how-pro-sports-have-punished-team-owners-before/
So what’s your take on the Marge Schott? I didn’t realize that she was banned from baseball, (according to your link) but was of the impression that she was simply forced out based on her transgressions. I suppose precedent or not, if an entity like the MLB or NBA wants you out, they’ll find a way to get you out….
Banned, as in couldn’t attend games or run the team. She still owned the club. It wasn’t much fun owning the club when she was banned from the park, so she quit. I agree that it’s very close to taking away the team, but not quite. She was an ignorant antisemite bigot, and under the old rules, could be banned as a detriment to the game. Baseball, as a legal monopoly, has more leeway than the NBA, I think.
By the way, it’s good to have you involved. Been a while.
Life has changed, and my time is not all my own anymore. I try to not comment unless I’m truly in a place to think, or more importantly listen. I do read most of your posts, and have suggested your site to my students of both political leanings. ( a shame there’s only two) As to your last comment, the monopoly aspect of baseball is an important distinction, and one that I didn’t think of. Also one that I don’t agree with, as much as I love baseball. I wonder if regular franchise agreements would offer any insight? If Sterling owned a bunch of McDonalds and pissed off the folks in Chicago, might they come after him to sell? Although I’m not a lawyer, I have to think that the good of the group would “legally” trump the rights of an individual owner-racist or not….
“When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk,” the President responded.
We know that. We have been dealing with this from our President for over five years now. Does he not think that we have figured that out by now?
-Jut
Correction: The Clippers are not an all African-American team. Starter JJ Reddick from Duke University is not black.
I was misinformed, apparently. I don’t pay attention to the racial make-up of sports teams, myself.
I thought this was a free country. Where we are allowed to think, and say whatever we want to. People don’t have to agree. This was a jealous old man who thought he was arguing w/his girlfriend in the privacy of his own home. She set him up. There but for the grace of God go I. Have any black players ever said a racist statement just between friends? I challenge any black man over the age of 40 to ask themselves that question. I’m hispanic, Charles Barkley andShaq both put down hispanics, and Latina women on the air in San Antonio. How soon we forget. Some of the most racist people I have ever met are black. But it’s ok for them to be racist. There’s a double standard. Don’t agree w/ one word said by Sterling, he wasn’t at a podium this slut got him good. I would defend his right to say it to the death. My father used to have to drink from colored fountains, not allowed to swim at white pools. I feel black people feel they have the market cornered when it comes to being mistreated. Look out, who’s next? A Mexican American from San Antonio TX. I’m disgusted,gonna try and take property from him? Get over it!