#moralmajority

Unless you were living under a rock for the past two weeks, you probably are familiar with the Donald Sterling imbroglio, where the Clippers owner and real-estate mogul voiced a set of outdated, racist comments on tape, angered a vast swathe of the nation, and has been summarily ousted from his franchise. The rallying cry of voices across the nation and the swift justice brought upon Mr. Sterling were heartening in the context of moral and social progress. The process by which we achieved those results, however, is a bit troubling.

First of all, the media and institutions such as the NAACP completely dropped the ball in terms of highlighting the more important violations committed by Mr. Sterling. Sterling's personal beliefs, however odious, are not necessarily punishable by law (even if they were penalized in this case). His business actions are. Sadly, the media devoted none of the scrutiny it used in the past few weeks to showcase Sterling's practices of institutionalized racism (e.g., discriminatory rental policies). Instead, publications such as the LA Times left unresolved the glaring conflict between stories involving lawsuits / substantial accusations of racism with the full-page, propaganda-looking ads Sterling purchased to proselytize his monetary "support" of minorities. One of the primary beneficiaries of his largesse was the NAACP, which failed not only to further publicize Mr. Sterling's violations, but also to turn down his questionably-motivated donations. Ironically, the group charged with championing the cause of colored people was complicit in supporting a man who was privately and publicly opposed to its raison d'etre (I remain astounded that the NAACP was about to present Mr. Sterling with his second lifetime achievement award).

Furthermore, I find it disheartening that the age of instant news / punditry has made people that much quicker to jump to conclusions and to shame others. Case in point: when asked to comment on the incident, basketball legend Michael Jordan initially declined to make any statement. Twittersphere blew up with individuals who pilloried MJ's refusal to come out with his moral guns blazing, when in fact, he should have been applauded for taking the time to collect his thoughts and ensure they were appropriately nuanced before making a public statement, especially with the evidence surrounding the situation in flux.

The mob mentality that accompanied this incident reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case. While both Donald Sterling and George Zimmerman are clearly in the wrong, there was an overriding desire to exact retribution as soon as possible. I totally get that. Moral progress can be frustratingly slow and seemingly impeded by institutions, rules, and processes that comprise the status quo. But at the same time, there are certain rules (e.g., due process) that are instituted for the very purpose of preventing snap judgments from affecting fairness.

The moral majority will continue to push for a morally satisfying, but ultimately double-edged, solution to these controversies. In the Trayvon Martin case, removing the rights of the defendant can be very negative for the very people that the moral majority seeks to defend (i.e., minorities are often the defendants in homicide cases). In Sterling's situation, punishing individuals on the basis of potentially private conversations could be the precedent for suppressing minority opinions, which is paradoxically how many morally progressive movements originate. Our right to differ, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others, underpins coexistence in a free and diverse society.