dougthonus wrote:The Ferry thing is beyond strange. Like others, I can't even begin to figure out what the hell that even means.
It seems like from one report that he read it, and to me this is far worse. If so, it implies that this parlance was used enough by scouts that it actually makes sense to someone and is a valid way to judge the recruits. That said, if there was a formal probe created by this incident, and it didn't uncover anything else, then the implication is that it wasn't a wide spread issue.
Either way, the Deng thing doesn't seem to relate to Levenson at all. I agree his comments were insensitive. I think it's certainly possible he's racist or possible he's not. I think he could have discussed race in a more sensitive way at a minimum, but I'd say the bar for political correctness is pretty low when the email is going out to three people (I think?).
I agree with everything that you wrote, and I want to emphasize the last sentence. To me, the word "insensitive" really doesn't apply when you're having a private conversation with a few people, none of whom will be offended by what you write. One might claim that his analysis was in poor taste, although as others have pointed out, he was very clearly trying to maximize profit, and the world is FULL of people who utilize poor taste in order to do that-- who in fact DO profit by utilizing poor taste. One might claim that his analysis was fallacious-- that white customers were not staying away for the reasons that he guessed, or that African American customers had more money to spend than what he indicated. But that would be an empirical matter, not a normative one.
The owner's email wasn't racist. It wasn't offensive to the people to whom it was addressed. However, I can completely see why, once it's leaked (as was probably threatened), people of color might be ticked off by the insinuation that their money isn't good enough or that people of their race don't represent enough capital to comprise a sufficient fanbase. And I can see why, if enough people get mad about it, Levenson would become a less desirable owner for the NBA. (I also suspect that he wants to sell the team, as others have intimated.)
That said, it's hard for me to understand why anyone who's ticked at Levenson isn't equally ticked off at David Stern for trying to make players dress in more of a corporate fashion, and thus trying to make the players and the game appeal more to white, corporate sensibilities. How is that any different? Levenson apparently wanted the music and the staff to appeal in those kinds of ways. Yet Stern is lauded for having gained the NBA much more popular traction at home and abroad. If Stern isn't considered offensive, should Levenson be?