THE DONALD STERLING SAGA, NO. 3 : WHILE STERLING CLEARLY IS A WHITE RACIST, UNLIKE OTHER WHITE RACISTS WHO DISASSOCIATE FROM BLACK PEOPLE ALTOGETHER, STERLING CONTRIBUTED TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY, AND THAT HAS TO COUNT FOR SOMETHING. STERLING'S STRATEGY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NOT THE COURTS. THE GOVERNORS STILL MUST APPROVE THE DEAL AND CAN REQUIRE THE REDUCTION OF SANCTIONS AS A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL.

Los Angeles, California



June 19, 2014
(Today's Date)

June 12, 2014
(Original Date)

*Denotes a change made in the original blog (either adding or deleting information)

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after original publication)

***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California



Donald Sterling has now decided to continue to pursue his previously filed lawsuit againgst the NBA in order to protect his rights to "due process". I believe he's wasting his time. I think the court will decide his court matter on a contractual basis and find that he agreed to and with the terms of the contract with the NBA, which included a forced sale of the team and other sanctions.

However, NBA league owners still must approve the purchase of the team by former Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer, and the owners can require that the sanctions be reduced in order to obtain their approval. Therefore, Sterling should make his appeal to the Board of Governors, rather than the courts, for reduction of sanctions, i.e., the $2.5 million dollar fine and the lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling should concede the sale of the team. Under the circumstances, Commissioner Adam Silver was (is) absolutely correct in ordering the sale of the team, and the team should be owned by somebody other than the Sterlings, based on Sterling's racism and racist remarks and the direct relationship between the racism and the predominantly African American team and other African American team personnel or employees.

However, according to the L.A. Times, Sterling has now stated, "The NBA is a band of hypocrites and bullies. They will not stop until someone stands up. They have taken the liberty to desecrate my privacy rights and my right to own property. We have to fight these despicable monsters." June 11, 2014, "More drama for Sterlings." These statements certainly doesn't help Sterling's case with the other owners. But I still believe that Sterling's only chance at getting his sanctions reduced is an appeal to the owners or governors. Perhaps they will keep in mind that these statements are being made by an angry and deflated white man, who is losing a team that he has owned for decades, at a time when the team is finally achieving great success.

Sterling's arguments to the Board of Governors for reduction of the sanctions should be twofold : (1) That the sanctions are unfair under the circumstances, and (2)that, despite his racism, he (Sterling) has made significant contributions to the Black community that simply cannot be discounted in a decision to properly sanction him for his racism.


FAIRNESS OF THE SANCTIONS

As I have stated before, and as I state here, Donald Sterling is a white racist, and I am thankful to V. Stiviano and TMZ for revealing the "real" (and racist) Donald Sterling to me and the Black public, and the L.A. Black community, and the remaining communities, for without the audiotapes obtained by Stiviano and played by TMZ, we would not have known the "real" Donald Sterling, although others, such as Elgin Baylor, did.

NOTE: I, personally, had already concluded that Sterling was a racist, based on the Elgin Baylor case. I had relied on my knowledge of Elgin Baylor's history and accomplishments, and his character, and his assertion that Sterling had maintained a "plantation" type mentality and operation of the team. I had declared to some of my acquaintances that Sterling was a racist.


But, all white racists are not the same. And Sterling should be treated and sanctioned according to the type of white racist that he is. Although Sterling exhibited and exercised racist tendencies in the past, e.g., regarding the discrimination against Black people in his housing properties which resulted in settlements and firing Elgin Baylor based on race or color, his sanctions (and other actions) by the NBA were based on his "speech" racism, not any "action or conduct" racism, which is the worst kind of racism. Incidentally, in my opinion, white America and the white mass media's widespread coverage of "speech" racism, e.g., Paula Deen, is nothing more than producing a scapegoat for the real racism, i.e., action racism, which is covered up. And the gullable ones fall for this. The exceptional case is the action murder case, i.e., James Byrd, dragged to death by white racists. But all the action non-murder cases, which are most of the action racist or racism cases, are generally covered up by the white mass media.

Sterling was punished by the NBA with the maximum or near maximum punishment that the NBA could dish out, i.e, the lifetime ban from the NBA. But, if Sterling is given the maximum punishment by the NBA for what would otherwise be protected free speech, what punishment do you give to the white owner that kills a black NBA player because the player is Black? ANS : A lifetime ban, because that's the maximum ban that can be given. So why should Sterling be given the maximum punishment when his racism did not reach a maximum level of harm? Shouldn't the punishment match the crime? (And clearly some "action" racism is a crime). ANS: Yes. Why? Fairness. Even racists deserve some modicum of fairness, when there are degrees of racism; and, there are. In fairness, a hate-filled white racist owner who murders a Black basketball player because of the black player's race or color should receive the maximum punishment of a ban for life from the NBA, while the white owner who merely, in comparison, utters offensive (but not hateful, i.e., "nigger") speech should not. It's simple as that. Sterling absolutely should be punished by the NBA, he must be, but the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the behavior. I place a high degree of value on the fact that Sterling, raw, when the public was not present, referred to Black people as "Black people" and not "niggers", when he made his statements. That difference cannot be discounted. That difference, for me, makes all the difference in the world.


STERLING'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY

Sterling should argue to the owners that, notwithstanding his racism and racist statements directed at or towards Black people, he, unlike a lot other racists, have contributed to the Black community in significant ways, and that should count for something.

Only Sterling know of all of his contributions, but I know that he hired Elgin Baylor as a general manager when it wasn't "customary" to do so (or when there weren't widespread hiring of black players as general managers--but, I still believe he fired Baylor because Baylor was Black, which was an act of racism). I know that he hired Doc Rivers, a Black man, as head coach of the Clippers. And, although there are several other Black head coaches at this time, it still cannot be said that it is "common" or widespread for white owners to hire Black coaches (and that includes the recent hiring of Derek Fisher by Phil Jackson and the New York Knicks). According to Sterling, he also has contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and I know that he has contributed to the NAACP. There are many Black people who have not contributed to these organizations, even though they could have or had the financial ability to do so.
And, I'm sure many black college students attending historically black colleges and universities benefitted from these contributions. I attended law school at a historically black university (Howard University) and I'm sure UNCF was an integral part of support for Howard when I attended. These contributions by Sterling has to count for something.


In sum, this blog is not meant to defend Donald Sterling, nor his racism, nor his racist statements, or his racist attitudes. This blog is written merely to try and place Sterling's racism in proper perspective. Sterling is a white racist, who uttered racist and offensive statements which revealed the real Donald Sterling, and the NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver were correct in sanctioning and/or punishing Sterling for his statements and supportive attitude. However, I don't believe all racists should be lumped together and treated the same in meting out punishment. And, under the circumstances here, I don't believe that Sterling deserve the maximum punishment that the NBA can give; and that's what has happened here. Personally, in view of Sterling's age, I think the ban should be no more than 3-5 years. I would recommend 3. years. The fine should be $1 million dollars.

Sterling is a racist, but he's a "schizophrenic" racist, his racial behavior patterns diverge, sometimes in a positive way.

NOTE : Sterling could have saved his team and himself if he had only apologized immediately after the tapes were made public; instead of waiting until after the league determined that it was actually and factually his voice on the tapes. I believe the league and the Clippers, and the public would have accepted his apology (the same apology that he made on CNN--without the derogatory statements about Magic Johnson of course). Even if the NBA would have found that some type of sanction was nonetheless necessary, I do not believe the sanction would have been a lifetime ban or a sale of the team, especially if Sterling would have been given an opportunity to present his side of the case to the owners. I don't think the NBA would have gotten two-thirds of the owners to agree to take Sterling's team from him at that time. But, now, it's too late.


As I stated above, I believe Sterling's best bet is to appeal to the owners-governors for reduction of his sanctions. I believe he is wasting his time and money in pursuing a lawsuit, where there certainly will be defenses to his constitutional "due process" claims. He should save his time and money (and face) and dismiss his lawsuit against the NBA regarding the sanctions (the feud between he and his wife is another matter and I have no comment on that). When the NBA was moving towards taking the team from Sterling, there was a process set up for Sterling to present his side of the case. Sterling should rely on that aspect of the process to make his arguments to the governors for reduction of sanctions and for the governors to utilize their authority or power to deny approval of the sale to Ballmer unless, in fairness, the sanctions are reduced.


**UPDATE--June 14, 2014

NOW THAT DONALD STERLING HAS CHANGED COURSE IN HIS THEORY OF DEPRIVATION AND HIS COURSE OF ACTION, I WITHDRAW MY OPINION THAT HE IS WASTING HIS TIME WITH THE LEGAL PROCESS OR THE COURTS.

Originally, above, I stated my opinion that Sterling was wasting his time pursuing a legal action in court. But, that was based on the fact that Sterling had claimed that the NBA deprived him of "due process", which I perceived as constitutional due process; and on that basis, I believed that he would not prevail on that claim in court, because I believe that the court would not even reach a constitutional question, and even if it did, there would be a defense to the court hearing the matter.

However, now that Sterling is apparently pursuing a course of discrimination, or that the NBA is unjustly treating him differently or unfairly, I believe that he might very well have at least a colorable claim in court; at least, if he pursues relief under the California discrimination statute, i.e., the Unruh Civil Rights Act. But, regardless as to how he proceeds, he does have a more colorable claim in pursuance of the discrimination aspect of his accusations than the due process claim.

But, his new direction also closes the door on my suggestion above. There is no way (I think) the owners will now entertain an appeal made directly to them when Sterling has now not only made disparaging statements about them, but he has also now made public that he is investigating them and/or others for "dirt" (or discrimnatory actions) that he can use in defense of his accusations that he is being treated differently and unfairly.

So, now, Sterling has thrown his punishment and/or sanctions into an ALL OR NONE situation. He no longer has (or wants, I suppose) the option of obtaining a reduction in his punishment. He will now (I believe Sterling believes) either get the entire punishment set aside, including the forced sale of the team, or be subjected to or liable for the entire punishment. However, I believe that even if Sterling is successful with his discrimination claims (and I think that he can be--although, I don't know if he will be), a court still will require him to sell the team under the circumstances. It is my understanding that Sterling has already found some "dirt" on some individuals that might be affected by his accusations. I'm not surprised. Not at all. There are many racists or racial discriminators outside of the NBA, so why wouldn't there be inside the NBA?

I certainly support Sterling exposing as many racists as he can. The more the merrier. The more racists who are exposed, the better it will be for the country. Although, in many cases, nothing is done even with the exposure (because the racists influence other racists or some non-racists to do nothing). But, if anything is to be done about racism in the country, it will start will exposure. And, that's what happened to Sterling. And, that's what Sterling is attempting to do regarding others.

In the near future, I will do my part.