The NBA Initiates Charge To Terminate Donald Sterling’s Ownership, Sets Hearing Date

The NBA released a statement today insisting that they’re fully intent on moving forward with removing Donald Sterling from the Clippers, whether he goes willingly or not.  The NBA charged Donald Sterling on Monday with damaging the league and its teams with his racist actions and comments, an act that provides grounds for termination under several provisions of the NBA’s Constitution and related agreements. A hearing has been set for June 3rd after which owners could vote to terminate his ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers.

The NBA is taking issue with Sterling for the following reasons:

• Disparaging African-Americans and minorities.
• Directing a female acquaintance not to associate publicly with African-Americans or to bring African-Americans to Clippers games.
• Criticizing African-Americans for not supporting their communities.
• Significantly undermining the NBA’s efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
• Damaging the NBA’s relationship with its fans.
• Harming NBA owners, players and Clippers team personnel.
• Impairing the NBA’s relationship with marketing and merchandising partners, as well as with government and community leaders.

Sterling has until May 27 to respond to the charge, and the right to appear at the hearing and make a presentation before the board of governors. He has the right to a lawyer at the hearing, but strict courtroom rules of evidence would not apply.

Long story short, for every action is a reaction and because Sterling’s words caused the league money and a headache, they want him out. 

Some felt that because the Sterling was allegedly recorded without his knowledge that the tapes should not be held against him. Unfortunately they forget, this is a business. A job. The NBA has the right to move forward, whether you agree with how the tape was obtained or not. Regardless of whether he knew he was recorded, that is definitely his voice, his beliefs and his thoughts and although we believe in freedom of speech, that does not mean freedom from consequence.