Doc Hoff’s BlogBlog Project | By Jenna Figlioli, National Agenda 2019
“Corporations, China, and Contradictions: How the NBA is facing criticisms regarding a General Manager’s support of Hong Kong Protests”
Jenna Figlioli is a Senior Political Science major with minors in Economics, and Legal Studies. She is a student in the 2019 National Agenda “Direction Democracy” class, and reflects on Jonathan Haidt’s “moral foundations” theory to examine the recent controversy about the NBA and China.
Recently, we got to see how much corporations crave money and power over something so imperative as free speech. The GM of the Houston Rockets in the NBA tweeted in support of the pro-democracy protests going on in Hong Kong. What many — including myself — weren’t aware of is how crucial the Chinese are in the NBA. Not only is the country a huge supporter of the league, but they also help finance it in many ways. The tweet was soon deleted (although you can see a screenshot above) — most likely for the immediate backlash he received from both the U.S. and China. The GM tweeted again, apologizing for his previous statement and disassociating his views from that of the team and the NBA. The thread produced from his apologies shows a lot of support for his opinion prior to its deletion, but this sharp controversy is something that the league is not particularly used to.
The NBA consists of players and coaches that often express their opinions regarding social and political issues, like gun control, mass shootings, criticisms of Trump, racism, and many other things. However when situations arise involving speech that offends China, there are almost always immediate formal apologies issued. Why is that the case, I wondered? When we are told and encouraged to express our opinions and criticisms of things going on in our country, why can’t people and organizations do the same in support of citizens of another country?
In our recent OpenMind assignment, there was discussion about how to have good conversations about a topic when we differ in opinion. It suggested that when someone blatantly expresses that they disagree with you, your first reaction would be to get defensive. So, the better approach would be to show them that you value their opinion and are interested in learning more about it. They suggest listening 70% of the time and speaking 30% of the time; and if you still don’t agree with them, start talking about the situation framed in a way that applies their values.
It appears that the Chinese are doing exactly what OpenMind advised against. Instead of acting rationally about the situation and realizing the values represented in the United States, they got defensive and expressed their disapproval of the GM’s support of the protestor. Instead of being able to have rational conversations and interactions, they created a heated controversy that is resulting in their opposition to the NBA and the Rockets — who were their second favorite team until this happened.
An interesting way to look at this situation is through Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind,” and how he compares Democrats and Republicans in their use of moral foundations. He illustrates that Democrats generally employ three of these moral foundations, while Republicans use all six — this is why Republicans have a better ability to connect with voters, as they more effectively communicate with their “elephants” (emotions/intuitions), and not the “riders” (rationality). Haidt describes Democrats as focusing too much on care and fairness, and they need to expand to things like loyalty, authority and sanctity.
Thinking about who was in support of the GM and who was in opposition of his tweet, those in support could be seen as similar to Democrats in this scenario. They speak out for things like human rights, but more so pursuant in the means of outcomes, which are more or less unobtainable. Should they be more respectful of things like authority, especially for China? Or loyalty of a well-known system of China’s investment in the League? It’s hard to say what the best approach is regarding the protestors in China that the government — and apparently many of its citizens — do not support.
For an institution known for speaking out for what they believe in and supporting many social/political issues, the views of the GM should not be treated any different — especially when it appears to just be when money is at stake. I was feeling more optimistic as I read through the tweets in support of the GM, and their discontent with the league succumbing to bullies in China. Hopefully everyone — especially the NBA — will learn from this unfortunate situation, and get back to their consistent efforts to raise awareness with societal issues taking place every day.
Jenna Figlioli is a student in the National Agenda class 2019 at the University of Delaware. This blog was voted as a favorite among her peers.
