Jersey slogan concerns opens wider debate on limit of symbolic support

Debate over the limits over symbolic gestures like racial justice slogans on jerseys in the NBA restart grows among Celtics, and around the league.

While the NBA should be commended for their commitment to furthering racial justice with the Disney restart, not everyone on the Boston Celtics and the other 29 teams in the league feel it goes far enough.

The most visible moves made by the league include having the words “Black Lives Matter” on the court and pre-approved slogans supporting racial justice on jersey nameplates in place of player names — a move that would be virtually unthinkable in any of the other three major North American pro sports.

Still, there are legitimate gripes to be had about the plan; namely,  that the pre-approved message process itself is itself a problem to some players, such as the Celtics’ Jaylen Brown.

“I would like to see — because I think it can still happen — more options available to put on the back of our jerseys,” related the Marietta native in a recent conference call with reporters (via NBC Sports Bostons’ Darren Hartwell).

“We understand anything vulgar our league doesn’t necessarily represent, but for histories and causes such as now, I think that that list is an example of a form of limitation. I think we should be able to express our struggle just a little bit more.”

This was echoed by his teammate Marcus Smart in a media availability session over the weekend at the Disney restart.

“I definitely would have liked to have been able to choose,” he began.

“A lot of guys are upset with the list because we didn’t have much input, if any at all on what gets to go on that list … at the same time the ability to be able to put something on there still is something that will help this cause and get the message out.”

That recognition that while perhaps still only a symbolic gesture and not structural change it is still a valuable tool is shared by former Celtic center Kendrick Perkins, who recently discussed this very topic on ESPN with fellow analyst Amin El-Hassan.

“To all the people that’s out there criticizing and they’re saying, ‘Okay, cool. So what [if] they do this?’ Nah, that’s major, right?” began Perkins.

“Because anything that could bring awareness to Black Lives Matter, in my opinion, I applaud it. People want to say, ‘Oh, that’s all you’re doing?’ That’s the light … Millions of people are going to be watching these games and it’s going to be a reminder to the millions of people that are watching the game, so I’m with it 100%.

The former Boston big man went on to note the publicity for the cause won’t just be on the court, noting players will likely want to share images and discussing them before and after the games.

“That’s a lot to me — that’s a lot,” he added. “That’s a lot; bringing awareness to the millions of people that’s going to be watching these games, and I love it. I love the direction that they’re going. It’s a start.”

El-Hassan made a point of circling back to the structural in response.

The analyst noted that while the symbolic gesture was an important one, it did not  mobilize the considerable power available to the league to effect structural change in support of policies to improve racial justice in U.S. and Canadian society — or internally within the league.

“I’m one of the people that you’re talking about right there,” explained El-Hassan.

“To me, protesting, making signs using our voices,” he added, “these are all tools of the people, because the people often don’t have resources ,don’t have money and don’t have connections, right?”

“When you talk about the NBA, and specifically NBA owners in the NBA as a league office, they have resources, they’ve got money. And most importantly, they have direct lines to every lawmaker in this country, at least the ones that operate in NBA municipalities … I’m not saying this is all they’re doing. But if all they’re doing is putting Black Lives Matter on the court, that’s not good enough … because you have power and opportunity available for you to do so much more.”

The ESPN analyst went on to give a concrete example of the difference between symbolic change and structural change — and a poignant one at that, given the inaction of the league to weigh in on structural changes (at least yet) in ways they have for other minorities.

“In the NBA, it’s not just money. It’s the influence. It’s the the connections that they have as owners and as an entity to get real change done. As I said last week, when there was a discriminatory law in North Carolina, they [didn’t get] pink LGBTQ Lives Matter on the floor, they went and got stuff done.”

It’s an excellent example, really, of the difference between the two. In one case, consciousness is raised, and that is undeniably important. But it also does little if anything to prevent those same tragedies requiring the raising of consciousness about them in the first place from happening again.

In the case of the discriminatory law against transgender folk in North Carolina, the league acted swiftly and decisively to withhold potential revenue while publicly shaming the state for their prejudicial legislation.

Action which ultimately helped lead to the repeal of that policy.

And while it certainly won’t make anti-transgender discrimination end any more than a similar strategy will make racism disappear, it will help end racially discriminatory policy that has a bona fide impact on the lives we want people to affirm matter.

And that is a much better way to do it, in terms of results.

[lawrence-related id=37822,36560,4146,37865]