Do you think an employer has the right to discriminate based on race?

[OldSkoolball#52]

I only ask because it was reported - and never refuted - that Chris Paul insisted he would only return to the Clippers to play for an African American head coach. Donald Sterling acquiesced and canned Del Negro (lol @ name irony) and proceeded to interview Lionel Hollins and Byron Scott before ultimately hiring Doc Rivers.


Now, when you all read the thread title you got good and mad at the mere suggestion of such a thing (because you presumed I meant an employer only hiring white people). Once you realized I was talking about a situation where only black guys were considered, you relaxed and used whatever logic was convenient to convince yourself "well, that's different anyway.."


Do you think it's different to Vinny Del Negro, who lost his job due to his race? When he has never owned a slave or enforced a Jim Crow law? Regardless of what you think of Del Negro as a coach, Donald Sterling himself said publicly he liked Vinny, thought he did a nice job, and wanted to bring him back but was simply making a business decision based on the will of his star player. In other words, Del Negro lost his job because he is white, and Chris Paul wanted a black coach, and Donald Sterling obliged him.

Regardless of whether you put the blame on Paul or Sterling, the bottom line is that the Clippers coaching change was based 100% on race.

But be honest. This doesn't bother you nearly as much as if the roles had been reversed in the exact same situation. A conservative white player asking to only play for a white coach? He'd never do another commercial, never sell another jersey, maybe never get another contract ever again.


But for some reason only one of those two identical scenarios bothers you. Go ahead. Admit it. You know it's true.

[Kblaze8855]

Regardless of whether you put the blame on Paul or Sterling, the bottom line is that the Clippers coaching change was based 100% on race.

In 5 years as a coach hes won one series(in 7 games) then got swept in round two with a team talented enough to win it all and capped it off by losing in the first round with a 56 win team again expected to contend.

Clipper fans were calling for him to be fired for 3 years.

They hired a coach who has been to two finals, won a ring, and was a coach of the year before that.

Clippers fans begging for vinny to go:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=253872

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=256833&page=2


There were fire vinny chants at Staples.


And you call it 100% about race. You want honesty...let see how honest you are...


They win 3 rings in his 3 years you think hes still fired?


If not...how is it 100% race with performance playing no part?

[OldSkoolball#52]

In 5 years as a coach hes won one series(in 7 games) then got swept in round two with a team talented enough to win it all and capped it off by losing in the first round with a 56 win team again expected to contend.

Clipper fans were calling for him to be fired for 3 years.

They hired a coach who has been to two finals, won a ring, and was a coach of the year before that.

Clippers fans begging for vinny to go:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=253872

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=256833&page=2


There were fire vinny chants at Staples.


And you call it 100% about race. You want honesty...let see how honest you are...


They win 3 rings in his 3 years you think hes still fired?


If not...how is it 100% race with performance playing no part?

I gave the answer to that IN the op. Sterling himself SAID that he wanted to keep Del Negro but he had to do what his "players" (Paul, a free agent) wanted in order to keep them happy. It was then leaked (probably by the Clippers) that Paul had asked that they bring in an African American and used his free agency as leverage. They went on to consider Hollins and Scott before selecting Rivers.



This is how the owner himself said it went down. You seem to be looking for reasons to side step the issue. Chris Paul demanded a black coach or else he'd bolt in free agency, so Sterling hired A Negro when he otherwise would have kept Del Negro


Vinny's credentials are immaterial because the team owner is on record saying it wasnt about them.


So will you go ahead and address the actual issue or do you have another reason for ducking it?

[Kblaze8855]

If your time as a sports fan leads you to believe that when an owner says "Coach is doing a good job" it means he cant be fired you must have started last week.

Clippers owner Donald T. Sterling voiced his renewed confidence in Coach Mike Dunleavy after the team's double-overtime victory over the Sacramento Kings on Wednesday.

The pair held a phone conversation and a meeting Tuesday to clear the air after weeks of controversy surrounding the two.

Sterling in January sharply criticized Dunleavy, who responded with his own criticism of the organization. Since then, the two had not talked for weeks with Sterling not returning Dunleavy's phone calls.

Sterling said Wednesday that his comments were out of frustration because his team was losing and he had never seriously considered firing Dunleavy.

"Why would I fire him?" Sterling said. "He's taken us as far as any coach. He has a lot of pride and the losing was tough on everybody."

That was in the 09 season.

Notice how Dunleavy was gone in 2010?

All your "No matter what you think about vinny" thing was was a way to ignore that the entire basketball world thought he was on thin ice and the fans were begging for him to go.

Underperforming team...supposed to contend...lose in the first round...coach was rumored on the hotseat for 3 years...

Bad pick to make your case.

Try again when a coach who isnt expected to get fired gets fired.

Frank Vogel gets it and they replace him with Jay Z....get back to me.

You wanna pretend that performance has nothing to do with it go right ahead. Or at least do so here. There is no way you are dumb enough to believe that if they won it all it wouldnt in any way help him stay. You can say otherwise....but its obvious performance is a factor. It just doesnt help your point to say so.

So I dont expect you to. But there is no way you fail to see it.

Go right ahead and pretend otherwise though.

[Myth]

Sterling has been known for some racism against black people in his day, so I wonder if this was CP3's way of trying to counter that

Either way, no, I think the Clippers should have gone for the best coach available and not worried about race. If they were able to land Phil Jackson, that is what they should have done.

[Bandito]

isn't that against the law anyways?

[iamgine]

Do you think an employer has the right to discriminate based on race?

Not by law. In practice it happens and no one can prove it.

[Dresta]

It is wrong to do, but people should still have the right to do it. Firstly, it is completely unenforcible and futile to attempt to control who people hire and why they hire/ do not hire them. And secondly, it is no different in essence than any other employment discrimination based on physical appearance (for example, it is harder for an ugly person to find employment than a good looking one - not easy at all for an ugly guy/gal to get a job at a decent bar). These discriminations are openly accepted. In fact, there are instances when racial discrimination is both ok and legal, for instance in films or pornography (well, unless you're Spike Lee of course). And thirdly, if you own a business you should be able to hire whoever you want for whatever reason you want, and you shouldn't have to explain why either.

'Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'

Is it illegal that female pornstars get paid more than men (in a one on one seen at least) then? Do not understand.

[HarryCallahan]

Yes. Consumers also have the right to frequent establishments that aren't run by racist scumbags.

[Swaggin916]

Black people dictate how a lot of things go in this country despite the hypocrisy in a lot of instances. That being said, Chris Paul is an MVP candidate and when you are that amazing at your craft you have a lot of pull. He could demand hot women for reporters or personal trainers as well... He could be totally bluffing, but do you want to take that chance?

What you would hope for is an ethically sound person... one who isn't racist when it comes to a coach. If I was Sterling, I would have spoken with Paul and said that's not what I want this organization to represent. Let's face it though, it's Donald Sterling... What can we really expect? That being said, I think Doc Rivers was the most qualified candidate for the job anyway so everybody wins.

[longtime lurker]

In this case absolutely.

[MavsSuperFan]

No morally it is wrong to discriminate someone based on something they have absolutely zero control of.

Im not sure if del negro actually got fired for not being black, but if paul actually made that request, it does speak poorly of his character imo. Also it speaks poorly of his intelligence that he couldnt come up with another reason for wanting del negro fired and actually just flat out said it was cause he wasnt black.

Now, when you all read the thread title you got good and mad at the mere suggestion of such a thing (because you presumed I meant an employer only hiring white people). Once you realized I was talking about a situation where only black guys were considered, you relaxed and used whatever logic was convenient to convince yourself "well, that's different anyway.."

Your trolling with your agenda. But just to answer your question its not different imo. What you fail to realize is that this one time it happened to a white guy, it happens to minorities much more. Its wrong in all circumstances.

Also there were a bunch of legit reasons to fire del negro. His lack of production with a talented roster being number one on the list. Doc is a much better coach them him anyways. They should have fired him no matter what if they could upgrade to doc, since he is better at coaching.

[OldSkoolball#52]

No morally it is wrong to discriminate someone based on something they have absolutely zero control of.

So you think Hooters and strip clubs should have to hire a proportional number of male applicants, yes?

[OldSkoolball#52]

Your trolling with your agenda.

Can we get spell & grammar in here, please?

[Dresta]

So you think Hooters and strip clubs should have to hire a proportional number of male applicants, yes?

A proportional number of ugly chicks too.

Suppose if you called a prostitute (assuming it was legal, which it certainly should be) but you were constrained by law to get a hooker at random due to fair employment practices and anti-discrimination laws (hideous ones having to be paid as well as top-draw whores).

Would that be more fair Mavs?