The LIFE of Donald Sterling and the Los Angeles Clippers

"Private" Remarks

For many NBA fans, Donald Sterling’s infamous rant about the African American community was the first time they heard his name mentioned.  As with most information I hear about via social media outlets, I was very skeptical of what I heard about the comments Sterling allegedly made to his girlfriend.  I seriously thought that nobody could be dumb enough to be recorded saying blatantly racist statements.  I felt that way until I listened to nearly nine minutes of an audio recording between Sterling and his girlfriend.  After listening to his remarks, I was not overly surprised.  I would imagine that he is one of many people who make racially insensitive comments in “private” places.  In this case, his remarks were recorded, and mysteriously leaked to the media by an unknown person.  I am glad that the NBA’s new Commissioner, Adam Silver, decided to ban him for life and also fine him $2.5 million.  Silver exercised the most punitive method afforded to him by the NBA’s Constitution to punish Sterling.  During Silver’s press conference, he mentioned that, according to the NBA’s Constitution, the owners can come together to force Sterling to sell the Los Angeles Clippers franchise.

Decisions, Decisions

Let’s be clear—Silver’s move had to be made.  We live in an era where stories are instantly shared to millions of people.  The audio recording of Sterling’s comments was clear and there was little doubt in anyone’s mind that he made the comments.  An even more telling factor in this analysis was the simple fact that Sterling never made a public statement denying that he made the comments.  This lack of action sent a clear message to me that he made the comments and that he does not have one remorseful bone in his body.  The NBA brand is a multi-billion dollar, international brand that is dependent upon each player, owner and employee of the NBA franchises to continue building the NBA brand.  Each NBA franchise is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.  To put things into perspective, we will examine the net worth of a few NBA franchises.  The San Antonio Spurs are the 10^th most valuable franchise and has a current value of $660 million.  The New York Knicks are the most valuable franchise and has a current value of $1.4 billion. 

The Los Angeles Clippers Franchise is worth $575 million.  That net worth does not include intangible things that add value to the franchise.  These intangible things include good will, and being a good corporate citizen.  In order to be a good corporate citizen, an organization cannot have a leader who is involved in deplorable behavior.  Before the allegations regarding Sterling’s comments were confirmed, multiple corporate sponsors of the Los Angeles Clippers temporarily severed ties with the franchise.  Imagine if the players decided not to play a game (which is exactly what the plan was if Silver did not handle the situation in a swift manner), or if some interest group organized a rally at the Staples Center (which was also in the works)?  Imagine the backlash and possible irreparable damage done to the Clippers franchise and most importantly—the NBA brand.  Imagine the lost profits surely to be incurred by the Clippers and again—the NBA. If Adam Silver did not act swiftly and with every ounce of authority afforded to him as the Commissioner, the NBA was set to lose millions of dollars.

A History of Egregious Behavior

Donald Sterling has a history riddled with accusations of racist remarks, practices and ideology.  In 2003, Sterling was sued for housing discrimination.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Sterling refused to rent apartments to African Americans.  This lawsuit followed another civil action where Sterling was accused of forcing African American and Hispanic tenants to leave rental property he owned in Los Angeles.  In 2009, he was ordered to pay a $2.725 million settlement for another housing discrimination case.   That same year, Hall of Fame player, Elgin Baylor, filed a lawsuit against Sterling alleging many years of racist behavior by him.  These examples are but a few in the long history of accusations of Sterling’s racially insensitive behavior.  

If the NBA was aware of his racist behavior during his tenure as an owner, why had he never been banned, sanctioned or suspended before this incident?  Although factually different, this case is analogous to the unfortunate sexual abuse allegations at Penn State University a few years ago.  In both cases, a powerful man was allowed to either exhibit or fail to report deplorable behavior over the course of many years.  When an institution allows egregious behavior from high-ranking officials, it creates an environment where secrets are swept under the rug.  The behavior is no longer seen as bad, but rather, “just the way things are done.”  It creates an environment where men are allowed to create their own rules.  It seems to me that Sterling knew he was not in any real danger because he has enough money to pay his way out of trouble.  It seems reasonable that he would have that belief because he displayed that kind of deplorable behavior for over thirty years with little consequences.  However, he began believing in his own legend and ability to evade serious trouble a little too much and that is what led to his demise.

What Next?

So what does Adam Silver’s decision mean for NBA fans, players and coaches?  To the fans, I think his decision shows that, although only in his 88^th day on the job, he is more than capable of making well-reasoned, tough decisions for the betterment of the NBA.  For NBA players, this decision shows them that blatant, racist behavior will not be tolerated in the NBA.  Does that mean that individual or institutionalized racism has been eradicated from the NBA?  No.  But, at least the players can rest assured that overt racism will not be tolerated and that is a step in the right direction.  As for the coaches, this decision should serve as a warning that certain behavior will not be tolerated.  Nothing humbles a person and screams, “you are expendable” quite like seeing your immediate boss get the axe.

So what happens to Sterling?  Will he fade to black as many of us hope he will do?  The answers to these questioned are undetermined at the moment.  However, if his record of defiance and blatant disregard for the Rule of Law are any indication, he almost certainly will not fade to black.  Even if the NBA owners vote to oust him as an owner that does not mean that he will not have other avenues of recourse.  He could pursue an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA and its owners.  Unfortunately, we will likely be hearing Sterling’s name mentioned for quite some time.  At least we will not have to see his face though, as his he has been banned from the NBA for LIFE.

Peace

Black Greek Letter Organizations: To Haze or Not to Haze, That is the Question

The other day, I listened to a thirty-minute discussion regarding Black Greek Letter Organizations (“BGLOs”), hazing and the ultimate demise of BGLOs.  The discussion was riveting and can be found at www.huffingtonpost.com.  Despite the riveting discussion of many issues, no conclusions were reached with respect to how to solve the many issues plaguing BGLOs.

By BGLOs, I am referring to the Divine Nine, which includes the following organizations: Alpha Phi Alpha, Fraternity Incorporated; Alpha Kappa Alpha, Sorority Incorporated; Kappa Alpha Psi, Fraternity Incorporated; Omega Psi Phi, Fraternity Incorporated; Delta Sigma Theta, Sorority Incorporated; Phi Beta Sigma, Fraternity Incorporated; Zeta Phi Beta, Sorority Incorporated; Sigma Gamma Rho, Sorority Incorporated; and Iota Phi Theta, Fraternity Incorporated.  I joined Kappa Alpha Psi, Fraternity Incorporated in the spring of 2002, and have enjoyed my time in the Fraternity.  During this time, I have been apprised of a myriad of issues plaguing BGLOs.  The biggest and most pressing issue, however, is hazing.  The following post will delve into this issue and how it impacts BGLOs from a legal and financial standpoint.

HAZING

What is hazing?  According to www.hazingprevention.org, it is any action taken or situation created intentionally: that causes embarrassment, harassment or ridicule; risks emotional and/or physical harm to members of a group or team, whether new or not, regardless of a person’s willingness to participate.  This definition paints a serious picture of the practice of hazing.  According to this definition, whether a person is forced into being hazed or willingly participates does not change the practice.  Hazing, on some level, has been used by organizations since the beginning of time.  However, there are many different levels of hazing.  For instance, in professional sports, it is widely known that rookies are often required to carry the bags of veteran players.  For many folks, this behavior can simply be described as “paying dues.”  The practice of hazing becomes problematic and exposes individuals to civil liability and criminal culpability when physical contact is interjected into the equation.  What usually happens next is something I am very familiar—litigation.  We live in a litigious society where people sue each other frequently.  The concern for those involved in hazing includes civil penalties as well as potential prison time.  Can BGLOs remain financially viable with the number of civil lawsuits being filed against each organization, respectively?  Only time will tell.  

SHOULD PLEDGING BE ABOVE-GROUND AGAIN?

Up until the early 1990s, joining BGLOs meant going through an above-ground pledge process.  For those not familiar with this process, refer to the A Different World episode where Ron Johnson and Dwayne Wayne attempt to join a fraternity.  Pledging as opposed to hazing are two different things.  However, many non-BGLO members believe the two terms are synonymous.  I believe pledging is steeped in teaching life lessons as opposed to bludgeoning people for no reason.  When pledging was conducted above-ground, I believe incidents of rogue behavior were lessened because the identities of those individuals who were “on-line” and the individuals who were pledging them were known.  When above-ground processes were banned, and national membership intake processes (“MIP”) were constructed, those individuals who supported rogue behavior were given an opportunity to operate covertly.  I think giving power, and control to college-age students in an environment that is not regulated can lead to immature decisions that can result in dangerous situations.  That being said, maybe it is time for organizations to move towards above-ground processes again.  Maybe that would offer protection for pledgees while also creating a more regulated environment. 

LIABILITY

BGLOs and individual members of BGLOs have been subjected to civil liability.  This kind of liability impacts BGLOs financial resources.  Some insurance companies (“insurers”) view BGLOs as high-risk organizations because of hazing accusations, lawsuits and bad press surrounding them. Wrongful death claims and negligence-based claims can lead to six-figure exposure for BGLOs.  Although the majority of lawsuits are settled outside of court, BGLOs must expend substantial financial resources before reaching a resolution in many cases.  The sheer level of lawsuits being filed against BGLOs represents a clear-and-present-danger to the sustainability of each organization.  Many, if not all of the BGLOs, are one bad jury verdict away from insolvency. 

The trickle down impact of the lawsuits on members of the BGLOs is represented by increased insurance premiums, which in turn means increased dues for members.  Also, if these organizations continue to be subjected to lawsuits, insurers will likely continue increasing the price of insurance premiums and the insurance policies may become more and more restrictive.  By restrictive I mean that insurers may include more exclusionary provisions in the insurance contracts that exclude certain behavior from insurance coverage.  In some insurance contracts, intentional torts committed by qualified members of BGLOs are not covered.  From a practical standpoint, that means that if BGLO members engage in intentional behavior, the insurers may not have a duty to defend them.  Generally, a duty to defend refers to an insurance company’s duty to defend its insured against legal claims filed against it.  Incumbent in the insurer’s duty to defend usually means they will hire counsel to represent the insured.  If the insurance contracts become more restrictive, insurance premiums paid by BGLOs may not include retention of legal counsel.  That would then mean that BGLOs would have to expend additional financial resources, outside of premiums, to hire legal counsel. As you can probably see from this brief discussion, the legal liability component of the hazing quandary has the potential to cause BGLOs to become insolvent. 

PLEDGING VERSUS PAPER

One issue that persists in the BGLO community revolves around one question: Did you pledge or are you “paper?”  At its most fundamental level, this question is searching for whether a person earned his membership into the organization or if he paid a membership fee to join.  This question is layered because many of the older members of BGLOs will tell stories about their tough roads to become members of BGLOs.  These same individuals, however, are often the same individuals who represent the national leadership in many of the BGLOs.  Many of the younger members view these individuals’ discussions of their processes as being contradictory.  On the one hand, they say hazing is wrong and that younger members should not engage in that kind of behavior. On the other hand, they discuss their processes and how it helped them understand and appreciate the organization. 

There has to be a fundamental understanding between all members of BGLOs that the legal landscape has changed substantially over the past 20 or 30 years.  Not only is hazing illegal, as it was 20 years ago, but the behavior is also enforced.  The enforcement component of the equation is a little different than it was 20 or 30 years ago.  People accused of hazing are routinely being criminally charged and in some cases sentenced to jail time.  They are also being sued civilly, which can lead to jury verdicts and judgments.  This change in enforcement has to change the perspective of members of each BGLO.  Although the legal landscape has changed, younger members often do not understand the legal implications.  They also have a deep desire to be respected by their peers and older brothers or sisters.  Being considered “paper” does not garner the respect many of them are seeking and therefore, they subject themselves to civil liability and criminal culpability all in the name of respect.

Because there are so many issues and sub-issues inherent in this discussion, I will revisit this topic in a later blogpost.

Peace