I dipped my toe in controversy yesterday, not because I have any particular feelings about basketball, in general, or the Nets, in particular. It was because I, being Jewish, could say something that a non-Jew would have been ripped to shreds as a hater for saying. Yes, it was about a basketball player named Kyrie who rode the Kanye (Ye?) West’s antisemitism train into suspension, and possibly the end of his career.
Here’s the weird thing. I have never, to my knowledge, watched Kyrie Irving play basketball. I assume he plays well or he wouldn’t be in the NBA, but beyond that, he means nothing to me. To be honest, I’m not exactly an aficionado of Ye either and wouldn’t be able to name a song of his or, until I googled it, tell you what his sneakers looked like. But I digress.
What I know about Kyrie Irving is that he refused to give a clear answer to the question of whether he’s an antisemite.
Nets guard Kyrie Irving, who was suspended indefinitely in the fallout of his social media posts promoting an antisemitic film, will have to meet with Jewish leaders and with the team before he can return to play, General Manager Sean Marks said Friday.
The comments came a day after the team announced it had suspended Irving without pay for at least five games because he “refused to unequivocally say he has no antisemitic beliefs, nor acknowledge specific hateful material” in the film he posted about last week.
He’s been suspended from play and his contract with Nike (he must be good if he has Kyrie branded Nike sneakers) “effective immediately.” What gave rise to such a reaction?
Last week, Irving posted a link on Twitter to an antisemitic film and posted a screenshot of the movie’s online rental page on Instagram. As fans, team leaders and even N.B.A. Commissioner Adam Silver called for Irving to apologize, Irving resisted until after he was suspended Thursday.
The link was about an antisemitic “documentary.”
The documentary, “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America,” was written and directed by Ronald Dalton Jr. and released in 2018. Dalton also released a book with the same title. On Thursday, Irving tweeted a link to a site where users can rent or buy the documentary. He also shared a screenshot of the site on Instagram.
Apparently, Kyrie Irving has something of a history of embracing nutjob theories, from Alex Jones to vaccines to the earth being flat. But this time, it landed on Irving hard.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the N.B.A. Hall of Famer, chastised Irving for sharing Jones’s video, writing on Substack that “Kyrie Irving would be dismissed as a comical buffoon if it weren’t for his influence over young people who look up to athletes.”
This captures the problem that gave rise to my controversial twit.
It's a shame that Kyrie Irving is antisemitic, but he's a basketball player, so who cares how he feels about Jews?
He shouldn't have been suspended by the Nets. As abhorrent as antisemitism is, Irving shouldn't be punished for having "wrong feelings" about others.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) November 4, 2022
I received many replies that reflected Irving’s position as a team ambassador with a duty to conduct himself off the court in a manner that wouldn’t bring approbation to the Nets. What Irving did was a public relations fiasco for the team. and consequently warranted a harsh reaction. And, indeed, these replies are correct. But that didn’t address the point I sought to make.
Sports figures, like singers, dancers and actors, aren’t our priests or pundits. What should make a person who is both tall and able to put a ball into a hoop the sort of person young people (or any people) listen to for their views on culture, politics or, frankly, anything but basketball? Our culture of celebrity has caused us to impute an unwarranted level of importance to the words of people whose high public profiles exist only because they can sing really well. In what conceivable way does that make their views on any subject more meaningful than anyone else’s?
Before his suspension, Kyrie Irving tried to fudge the question of whether he was antisemitic by dodging it. As many pointed out, there was only one acceptable reply to the question of “Are you antisemitic?” That answer is “No.” Irving refused to say that until after his suspension.
Hours after the team announced his suspension, Irving apologized in a late-night post on Instagram, saying, “To All Jewish families and Communities that are hurt and affected from my post, I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain, and I apologize.”
He didn’t cause me any pain, not because of what he said or didn’t say, but because I didn’t care how he felt about Jews before and still don’t now. I appreciate, as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said, that without “his influence over young people” he would just be a “comical buffoon” who was really good at playing basketball. The problem, then, isn’t so much Irving as the “young people” who look to a basketball player to decide whether or not to hate Jews.
A lot of people hold some pretty stupid, awful, dumb and hateful ideas. They’re not special, although many have amassed some rather surprising influence by spewing them, whether on twitter, podcasts or cable television. They gain followers, sycophants and fanatics because of the idiocy that emits from their yaps, and the distinction is that their “claim to fame” is what they spew, whom they hate and the lies they spread. Since this is their stock in trade, they have earned whatever disdain their words generate.
But a basketball player doesn’t get drafted for his intelligence, cultural or political insights or social purity. He’s just a basketball player. We need to stop expecting anything more of basketball players than putting balls in hoops. And should a basketball player hold an ignorant, offensive or crazy view, we should be able to shake our heads at the “comical buffoon” while cheering for him to sink a three-pointer at the buzzer, because that’s the only reason anyone goes to see him.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Say goodbye to your sneaker deal.
The whole “Black people can’t be [insert any synonym for ‘racist’]” argument is showing a lot more cracks these days. It’s almost like it was always just a semantic ploy devoid of real world meaning.
Straight black men are the white men of people of color.
Immediately after posting that I heard a phantom “FOCUS” admonition. Sorry for overlooking the point you explicitly complained was being overlooked. On that point….
The other responses may not be neglecting the point, but adding context that actually does render it moot.
If this guy were a plumber or an auto mechanic it would be more true that he gets paid strictly to do a particular mechanical task. But if someone were selling tickets to watch him plumb or change a transmission, he has become a commodity.
Being that we live in a human society and not an ant farm (though I don’t speak ant so who knows what’s going on in there) it may not possibly be any different. There are always “temperature of the room” considerations. Some come and go with irrational prejudice, like patriotism and religion. Other taboos remain consistent even if boundaries and paranoia surrounding them fluctuate. Meanwhile virtues (of similar variability) can make other performers aspirational role models.
It’s actually a byproduct of markets meeting culture, so wishing it different could be a monkey paw “be careful what you wish for” scenario. Even having to occasionally fight the latest mob prejudice may be preferable to losing the marketplace, as well as the concept of role models.
I’m with you on this one. When I crossed this story, the only thing which I noticed was that Mr. Irving’s given name reminded me of my long-ago days as an altar boy ( Kyrie eleison, ring the bell). But, I would conjecture the Nets care about your opinion whether Mr. Irving should be suspended as you care about whether he’s antisemitic.
The Nets are dealing with the situation as it exists. I’m arguing for what I think the situation should be.
Now, possibly because people of color are more marginalized, Facebook campaigns are popping up to “boycott the NBA” and “stand with Kyrie.” Because evil corporations should not be allowed to “bully” black athletes whose occasional personal faux pas interferes with profits.
Can’t find a trailer for this film, but in the description(s) of it, I don’t see anyone promoting hatred of the Jews based on their ethnicity, but I haven’t seen the film.
Irving is the Collin Kaepernick of basketball. Needlessly and purposefully falling on his sword and losing his paycheck. I hope he invested his previous money well.
You’ve taken the early lead for today’s Billy Madison award.
I’m neither a basketball fan nor a Jew, so I asked my cousin who is both and he wanted to know: Do you imagine an ascendant, Christian nationalist party, the roots of which are already echoing the darkest horrors of the 20th century by openly fomenting and harnessing hatred of Jewish people for political gain, will screen candidates for a revived Einsatzgruppen on whether they learned their hatred from a basketball player or a more serious thinker?
Godwin’s Law, in action.
Godwin’s law is a distraction when fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate. We were already talking about the literal hatred of Jews. Your argument is it matters where that hatred is learned, my argument is it doesn’t.
“Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.” -Mike Godwin
That’s not my argument, Jake.
I agree with you in principle, but sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If a famous white basketball player (are there any of those anymore?) had tweeted racist comments and refused to apologize or admit that they were racist he would have been fired rather than merely suspended. In this case, refusing to sink to the level of the cancel-culturists just encourages anti-Semitism, which is already on the rise especially among blacks and among the left-wing cancel-culturists themselves.
The “two wrongs make a right” doctrine?
Charles Barkley had it right 30 years ago: “Just because I can dunk a basketball doesn’t mean I should raise your kids.”
Maybe we accept celebrities’ off-topic guidance because easy conclusions are our favorite ones. It’s of a parcel with deciding “He’s great [awful] about everything because he agrees [disagrees] with me about one thing.” Thinking is hard.
A public figure being punished for wrongthink isn’t that surprising, I’m just a bit surprised that antisemitism is the wrongthink he was punished for. It’s still wrong to punish free expression, although I suppose one could make a case that Irving is seen as representing the Nets and bringing disrepute on the organization, or perhaps not.
Freedom of speech includes both saying dumb stuff and being called an asshole for saying it. For example Phil from Duck Dynasty, who got very butt hurt when his offensive words attracted an offensive reaction.
Call Kyrie an asshole all you want. He’ll get over it.
” . . . they sing really well . . .”
Some of them can’t sing at all. Tummy rub for you.
(I understand that this may not make the cut)
While children set out to just be athletes, that is not the sole job of those who are good enough to play professional professional sports. For better or worse, the value of leagues and franchises are dependent on being able to market their product to sell media rights and sponsorships. Personal brand is increasingly part of the value players bring to the teams that draft them, and this probably plays a role (even if not a primary one) in whether a player is drafted. This is more true in basketball because the teams are smaller and only a few players are on the court for most of the games.
You are right that a lot of fans want to see Kyrie perform on the court, but many fans are distressed by this controversy and other recent ones in the NBA. The NBA and the Nets have made decisions based on their rules and to support their business. Kyrie could have abided by these rules, but he chose not to. He was given a lot more leeway than another player was recently given, and now Kyrie has been punished as well.
Was I unclear about why this may be true, but wasn’t the point?
After decades of hawking products, it is only natural that celebrities have turned to hawking sociopolitical theories as well. The teams and athletes and ad agencies want the players to be able to sell shoes and cereal, and to that end, needed to create the myth that young people should be influenced by them, because reasons. The downside is that the influence has the potential to spill over to jutjob personal beliefs. Yet, because people are vested in the shoes and cereal, the best fix we have is to cut the nutjobs off from the shoes and cereal sales, without admitting that they were never qualified to sell shoes or cereal.
Maybe the problem is a society that wants to build people up to ridiculous heights because it feels so good to have someone important “on your team” and feels so much better to be part of the bloodthirsty mob that pulls them down when they turn out to be human.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Reserving social/economic punishments to be enforced by private parties really is the fun part of free speech. When can we bring back dueling for petty insults and violating social norms?
Sure Irving can say what he wants in my opinion. But the owner of the Nets paid, rounded up, a gazilion dollars for the Nets brand. He has the right to not have that brand tainted by one of the faces of his brand.
This is not a random worker bee, part of his job is being liked and admired. I dont really know how a basketball organization makes money. But i for one would find it hard to cheer for Irving so my seat on the stands might be empty. I sure as hell would not buy a shirt with his name.
Sure free speech is important but for a company money is much more important