NBAPA Lawyer: Double standard exists regarding age limit for black basketball players and white athletes in other sports

[brownsmith89]

it will be hard to prove that an owner is racist, unless you have a tape of donald sterling talking on the phone.

and then a white person can sound cold-hearted by saying, "you shouldn't even talk about racism because there isn't any."

it's like a lose-lose situation.

[Chalk1]

The D League is open to 18 year olds, assuming they graduated HS or the HS class they would have graduated in has graduated.

Even in it's present state the D League can accomadate the dozen or so players the 1-and-done rule effects yearly.

Mudiay could have taken that route, but went for the $1.2 million Chinese contract.

There are options, but it's clear where the kids want to play. Maybe that will change down the road.

[Bill Bradley]

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

There's a clear difference between exploiting a group of people because they are black vs exploiting a group of people who happen to be black. One can make an argument that both aren't noble actions, but one is racism and the other isn't.

I suppose that depends on how you define "racism." Most sociologists would disagree with you, including this one (from http://itp.wceruw.org/Bonilla-Silva%20R ... Racism.pdf):

"Although all racialized social systems are hierarchical, the particular character of the hierarchy,and thus of the racial structure,is variable. For example, domination of Blacks in the United States was achieved through dictatorial means during slavery, but in the post-civil rights period this domination has been hegemonic (Omi and Winant 1994; Winant1994).9 Similarly, the racial practices and mechanisms that have kept Blacks subordinated changed from overt and eminently racist to covert and indirectly racist (Bonilla- Silva and Lewis 1997). The unchanging element throughout these stages is that Blacks' life chances are significantly lower than those of Whites, and ultimately a racialized social orderis distinguished by this difference in life chances. Generally, the more dissimilar the races' life chances, the more racialized the social system, and vice versa."

[mtron929]

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

There's a clear difference between exploiting a group of people because they are black vs exploiting a group of people who happen to be black. One can make an argument that both aren't noble actions, but one is racism and the other isn't.

I suppose that depends on how you define "racism." At least this one sociologist disagrees with you (from http://itp.wceruw.org/Bonilla-Silva%20R ... Racism.pdf):

"Although all racialized social systems are hierarchical, the particular character of the hierarchy,and thus of the racial structure,is variable. For example, domination of Blacks in the United States was achieved through dictatorial means during slavery, but in the post-civil rights period this domination has been hegemonic (Omi and Winant 1994; Winant1994).9 Similarly, the racial practices and mechanisms that have kept Blacks subordinated changed from overt and eminently racist to covert and indirectly racist (Bonilla- Silva and Lewis 1997). The unchanging element throughout these stages is that Blacks' life chances are significantly lower than those of Whites, and ultimately a racialized social orderis distinguished by this difference in life chances. Generally, the more dissimilar the races' life chances, the more racialized the social system, and vice versa."

Of course, my definition is correct. Here is an extreme case that demonstrates this point.

Let's say hypothetically a person is looking to exploit his 10 new employees. He devised a contract filled with loop-holes and used a third party to get them to sign this unfair contract. Later on, he meets his new employees and learned that they were all black. Is he a racist? What if they were all white? Is he not a racist? How can the same action without any race variable lead to racist in one situation vs non-racist in the other?

[Leslie Forman]

There's a clear difference between exploiting a group of people because they are black vs exploiting a group of people who happen to be black. One can make an argument that both aren't noble actions, but one is racism and the other isn't.

In functionality, there is no goddamn difference.

[DanTown8587]

Of course you will get the standard ignorant white guy response that it has nothing to do with race. When you're white, it's a lot easier to not see race. But this is clearly a racist policy- one that disproportionately affects black athletes and lines the NCAA's pockets.

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

NBA owners do not care if you're black, white, or asian; they simply want the age rule. If the league was 60% white, do you honestly believe the age limit wouldn't exist?

[Bill Bradley]

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

NBA owners do not care if you're black, white, or asian; they simply want the age rule. If the league was 60% white, do you honestly believe the age limit wouldn't exist?

It's a racist system whether systematically exploiting black athletes was the intention or not.

As for your hypothetical, no, I don't think there would be an age limit if the league was majority white, but that point is irrelevant.

[DanTown8587]

It's a racist system whether systematically exploiting black athletes was the intention or not.

As for your hypothetical, no, I don't think there would be an age limit if the league was majority white, but that point is irrelevant.

Define racism for me.

Then tell me how that definition applies to a rule that doesn't specify race.

[Bill Bradley]

It's a racist system whether systematically exploiting black athletes was the intention or not.

As for your hypothetical, no, I don't think there would be an age limit if the league was majority white, but that point is irrelevant.

Define racism for me.

Then tell me how that definition applies to a rule that doesn't specify race.

I already did, a few posts up and throughout this thread. I also included a link above specifically about the definition of racism and how it need not be overt.

[mtron929]

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

NBA owners do not care if you're black, white, or asian; they simply want the age rule. If the league was 60% white, do you honestly believe the age limit wouldn't exist?

It's a racist system whether systematically exploiting black athletes was the intention or not.

As for your hypothetical, no, I don't think there would be an age limit if the league was majority white, but that point is irrelevant.

I think that point is actually the most relevant point in this discussion. If the league was majority white, and the owners did not have an age limit, that would point towards racism. But I find it surprising that you hold this view. You are basically saying that the NBA is so filled with racism that it would forgo profit (after all, most people agree that the age limit issue is about money) in order to satiate their racist tendencies. Do you not realize how farfetch this sounds?

[James40]

The NBA owners want to make as much money as possible. They feel that the age limit helps them in that so they pushed for it in the CBA negotiations. The NBA players agreed to it either because it helps their own selfish interests since it means less competition for them or they conceded this in order to get another benefit for themselves from the owners in return. Textbook example of capitalism at work (which makes the capitalism mention in the article hilarious). Screwing over the poor in order for the millionaires and the billionaires to get ever richer is what capitalism is all about after all.

You can go into the military at age 18, you can play basketball at age 18, simple as that.

Because there is no basketball outside of the NBA, right?[/quote

So citizens of the US should have to leave the US to make a living playing basketball while illegals flood our borders for jobs That makes sense. No wonder black people think whites are idiots.

[Chalk1]

You can go into the military at age 18, you can play basketball at age 18, simple as that.

Because there is no basketball outside of the NBA, right?[/quote

So citizens of the US should have to leave the US to make a living playing basketball while illegals flood our borders for jobs That makes sense. No wonder black people think whites are idiots.

It makes no difference what nation any basketball player is from in regards to NBA stipulating an age requirement.

The D League is in the US and it's an option for any 18 year old.

[Elden Payton]

This thread covers serious subject matter.

No wonder it turned to ****.

[Rasheeed!!!]

even if it is racist (it's not) who cares? life goes on

[baki]

The NBA owners want to make as much money as possible. They feel that the age limit helps them in that so they pushed for it in the CBA negotiations. The NBA players agreed to it either because it helps their own selfish interests since it means less competition for them or they conceded this in order to get another benefit for themselves from the owners in return. Textbook example of capitalism at work (which makes the capitalism mention in the article hilarious). Screwing over the poor in order for the millionaires and the billionaires to get ever richer is what capitalism is all about after all.

You can go into the military at age 18, you can play basketball at age 18, simple as that.

Because there is no basketball outside of the NBA, right?[/quote

So citizens of the US should have to leave the US to make a living playing basketball while illegals flood our borders for jobs That makes sense. No wonder black people think whites are idiots.

This is ridiculous and you know it.

[Hero]

Age should be 18. Can't believe Silver wants to raise it to 20. At least fix the D League first.

[Brandon-Clyde]

I suppose that depends on how you define "racism." Most sociologists would disagree with you, including this one (from http://itp.wceruw.org/Bonilla-Silva%20R ... Racism.pdf):

"Although all racialized social systems are hierarchical, the particular character of the hierarchy,and thus of the racial structure,is variable. For example, domination of Blacks in the United States was achieved through dictatorial means during slavery, but in the post-civil rights period this domination has been hegemonic (Omi and Winant 1994; Winant1994).9 Similarly, the racial practices and mechanisms that have kept Blacks subordinated changed from overt and eminently racist to covert and indirectly racist (Bonilla- Silva and Lewis 1997). The unchanging element throughout these stages is that Blacks' life chances are significantly lower than those of Whites, and ultimately a racialized social orderis distinguished by this difference in life chances. Generally, the more dissimilar the races' life chances, the more racialized the social system, and vice versa."

You cite a professor who is infamous for being among those calling for the castration of the accused(though ultimately found innocent Duke lacrosse players???? A man who spells America as "Amerikkka"?
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2013/03/an_extremist_comes_to_brooklyn/
He has also described the USA as "gringoland"

[Nate505]

Of course you will get the standard ignorant white guy response that it has nothing to do with race. When you're white, it's a lot easier to not see race. But this is clearly a racist policy- one that disproportionately affects black athletes and lines the NCAA's pockets.

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

But it doesn't target anyone of any race. Any NBA prospect has to undergo the same terms of employment. If all of a sudden for some unknown reason the majority of NBA prospects were white, they would have to follow the same policy, a policy that was collectively bargained by the owners and the NBAPA, the latter the last I looked were majority black.

Slavery did target a specific race, so one cannot make that argument. One could make the argument slavery had an economic component, and it certainly did, but it was a racist policy/law on its face.

[Johnlac1]

Of course you will get the standard ignorant white guy response that it has nothing to do with race. When you're white, it's a lot easier to not see race. But this is clearly a racist policy- one that disproportionately affects black athletes and lines the NCAA's pockets.

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

Yeah, that darn racist system where black athletes like Michael Jordan who came from a less than wealthy family has now close to a billion dollars in total wealth. What a terrible, racist system. (smirk)

[Pointgod]

There's a clear difference between exploiting a group of people because they are black vs exploiting a group of people who happen to be black. One can make an argument that both aren't noble actions, but one is racism and the other isn't.

I suppose that depends on how you define "racism." At least this one sociologist disagrees with you (from http://itp.wceruw.org/Bonilla-Silva%20R ... Racism.pdf):

"Although all racialized social systems are hierarchical, the particular character of the hierarchy,and thus of the racial structure,is variable. For example, domination of Blacks in the United States was achieved through dictatorial means during slavery, but in the post-civil rights period this domination has been hegemonic (Omi and Winant 1994; Winant1994).9 Similarly, the racial practices and mechanisms that have kept Blacks subordinated changed from overt and eminently racist to covert and indirectly racist (Bonilla- Silva and Lewis 1997). The unchanging element throughout these stages is that Blacks' life chances are significantly lower than those of Whites, and ultimately a racialized social orderis distinguished by this difference in life chances. Generally, the more dissimilar the races' life chances, the more racialized the social system, and vice versa."

Of course, my definition is correct. Here is an extreme case that demonstrates this point.

Let's say hypothetically a person is looking to exploit his 10 new employees. He devised a contract filled with loop-holes and used a third party to get them to sign this unfair contract. Later on, he meets his new employees and learned that they were all black. Is he a racist? What if they were all white? Is he not a racist? How can the same action without any race variable lead to racist in one situation vs non-racist in the other?

If the owner has a business in an industry that disproportionately employees black people then of course he would be racist. You act like he doesn't know or understand the demographics of his business before hiring people and making them sign these contracts. Believe it or not this exact same thing was done through US history to purposely marginalize black citizens. And it still goes on today.