Irving Suspension Reactive Not Proactive
Once again, sports teams and their leagues are too little, too late.
NBA player Kyrie Irving has been suspended by the Brooklyn Nets for five games without pay for an antisemitic social media post, deleting the post, making a weak apology, and donating half a million dollars to the Anti-Defamation League.
To some, this may seem like an appropriate and strong response, but in fact, it offers further proof that American sports team and leagues are far too slow to respond to improper conduct.
Most large corporations have codes of conduct that make clear to employees what constitutes propriety and impropriety and outlines clear consequences for conduct violations.
But every American sports organization and its member teams have demonstrated an appalling lack of responsiveness at aberrant behavior.
Everyone understands that the league and the team of the offender are embarrassed. Racism, sexism, religious bias, and homophobia are disturbing, and these organizations are built to function within their specific sports and were not created to be regulatory agencies that levy punishment for actions outside of the field of play.
Regardless, like other corporate entities, there is a responsibility to address antisocial conduct. Antisocial conduct is actions, behavior, or speech that is demeaning, degrading, and threatening to an individual or group.
The responsibilities are infinitely greater for sports leagues and other entities whose employees are public figures. When athletes, entertainers, politicians, and media members engage in hate speech, violent or violence-inciting behavior, or criminal activity, there should be swift and immediate consequences.
In reality, just as with the Irving situation, a now familiar sequence of events occurs with each of these incidents.
First, there is a statement of outrage and disavowal by the team and/or league.
Then, the offender takes a weak step at curtailing the controversy. They issue denials, downplay the incident, attempt to clarify their actions, and if the situation involves social media, they delete/remove the offending post.
Finally, when it is painfully obvious that the controversy is not only not abating, but gaining momentum, the offender offers an apology/pseudo-apology hoping that this step will defuse the issue.
If none of this causes the bad publicity to lessen, the team and/or league will punish the athlete, including fines, suspensions, or both.
Why aren’t there clear, consistent codes of conduct governing the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. and their respective teams, with rules explicitly stating the penalties for first and subsequent violations?
When someone in an office environment says or does something abhorrent, it is a terrible, but in most cases, private affair.
When Kyrie Irving promotes an anti-Jewish book/movie, it can lead to his fans and supporters to do the same.
Like Kanye West and his antisemitic comments led others to make similar public pronouncements.
Like hateful comments about Nancy Pelosi led to a crackpot breaking into her home and beating her husband over the head with a hammer.
Like a former president who incited his follower to riot and desecrate the US Capitol.
There’s far too much temperature gauging and damage control being conducted when there should be swift, immediate action.
Public figures should expect public accountability when they engage in anti-social and/or criminal behavior.
It won’t stop them from being hateful or miscreant.
But it will demonstrate that what they say or do has consequences.
As it is, consequences are far too slow in coming in too many segments of American society.