CHAPTER 6 CASE STUDY:
Legalizing Discrimination and Sport
On March 26, 2016, the North Carolina legislature passed the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act” most commonly known as House Bill 2 (HB2) or the “Bathroom Bill.” HB2, signed into law by then-governor Pat McCrory, effectively “nullified local ordinances around the state that would have expanded protections for the LGBT community” (Gordon, Price, & Peralta, 2016). Under the new law, sexual
orientation and gender identity expression were not considered “protected classes” (i.e., race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, or biological sex) against discrimination. Furthermore, and perhaps the most controversial aspect of this law, is that it required transgender people to use public restrooms based on their birth sex rather than their gender identity.
Backlash to HB2 was immediate. Major corporations, national, and international corporations, including PayPal, Deutsche Bank, and Time Warner, halted expansion efforts that would have added thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to the North Carolina economy.
By December 2016, seven states and over two dozen cities and counties issued travel bans prohibiting government employees from non-essential travel to North Carolina. Trade shows and professional associations canceled events and conferences in cities around the state, resulting in the loss of several million dollars. Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, and Maroon 5
canceled shows in cities around the state in protest of the anti-LGBT legislation (Bort, 2016).
Sport organizations also expressed their opposition to HB2. The National Basketball Association (NBA) relocated the 2017 NBA All-Star game from Charlotte to New Orleans, Louisiana. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) stripped North Carolina of hosting rights for seven NCAA-sanctioned tournaments and championships. The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) moved all neutral-
site sport championships, including the ACC football championship, out of North Carolina. Leaders of state colleges and universities in Minnesota deemed sport travel non-essential, thereby banning travel to North Carolina (Shipley, 2016). This move also prevented some student athletes from participating in national championships. The University of Vermont women’s basketball team also canceled their
game at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in protest of HB2. Because Vermont canceled the game, they also forfeited $17,500 of guaranteed money from UNC (Carter, 2016).
HB2 has since been partially repealed and many companies and organizations, including the NCAA, have reinstated events and travel to North Carolina. However, given the potential for discriminatory legislation in other states, leaders in sport must follow ethical decision-making principles when considering their organization’s position on discriminatory practices and practices that might harm the health and well-being of their athletes. In addition, sport leaders must also recognize the potential ethical issues (e.g., athletes lose opportunities to participate) that may arise when banning or boycotting activities.
Questions for Discussion
- An important part of the ethical decision-making process is to first recognize an ethical dilemma. Considering the examples provided in this section, should sport organizations boycott participation in states with
discriminatory laws?
- What situational factors in sport can provide leaders with the tools to successfully navigate an ethical dilemma?
Read through the chapter to help answer this question.
- Explain how you could use the ethical decision-making model described in the chapter to determine whether you would allow your team to participate in a state with discriminatory laws.
Title: Ethical Decision-Making in Sport: Addressing Discriminatory Laws
Introduction
The rise of discriminatory laws, such as the North Carolina "Bathroom Bill" (HB2), poses ethical dilemmas for sport organizations. Leaders in sport must navigate these situations by considering the potential consequences and balancing the interests of their athletes and the principles of fairness and inclusivity. This essay will explore the ethical decision-making process in determining whether sport organizations should boycott participation in states with discriminatory laws, considering situational factors and utilizing the ethical decision-making model proposed in the chapter.
Should Sport Organizations Boycott Participation in States with Discriminatory Laws?
The decision to boycott participation in states with discriminatory laws is a complex ethical dilemma. On one hand, boycotting sends a strong message against discrimination and supports the rights of marginalized groups. It demonstrates solidarity and can pressure states to reconsider discriminatory legislation. On the other hand, boycotting may disadvantage athletes who have trained and prepared for competitions. Furthermore, it raises questions about the effectiveness of boycotts in achieving long-term change.
One perspective argues that sport organizations have a responsibility to take a stand against discrimination by refusing to support events in states with discriminatory laws. By doing so, they align themselves with ethical principles that prioritize inclusivity, fairness, and human rights. This approach emphasizes the symbolic power of sport and its potential to inspire social change. Boycotting can place pressure on lawmakers and raise public awareness of discriminatory practices.
However, another perspective acknowledges that boycotting can have unintended consequences, particularly for athletes who may lose opportunities to compete or showcase their talents. Some argue that engagement and dialogue are more effective strategies for creating change. By participating in events held in states with discriminatory laws, sport organizations can use their platform to advocate for inclusivity and engage local communities in discussions about discrimination. This approach emphasizes the potential for education, exposure, and dialogue to challenge discriminatory practices from within.
Situational Factors in Sport to Navigate Ethical Dilemmas
Sport leaders must consider several situational factors when navigating ethical dilemmas related to participation in states with discriminatory laws. These factors can provide guidance in making informed decisions:
Legal Context: Leaders must be aware of the legal framework surrounding discriminatory laws in a particular state. Understanding the legal implications of participating or boycotting can help guide decisions and minimize potential legal risks.
Athlete Well-being: The well-being and safety of athletes should be prioritized. Leaders must assess the potential psychological and physical risks associated with participating in states with discriminatory laws. This includes considering the impact on athletes' mental health, sense of belonging, and potential exposure to discrimination.
Impact on Change: Assessing the potential impact of boycotting or participating is crucial. Leaders should evaluate whether their actions align with their desired outcomes and consider alternative strategies to effect change, such as engaging in advocacy efforts or collaborating with local organizations to promote inclusivity.
Collective Action: Collaborating with other sport organizations, governing bodies, and stakeholders can amplify the impact of actions taken. Leaders should consider joining forces with like-minded organizations to send a unified message against discrimination.
Using the Ethical Decision-Making Model
To determine whether to allow their team to participate in a state with discriminatory laws, sport leaders can utilize the ethical decision-making model described in the chapter. This model typically involves the following steps:
Identify the Problem: Clearly define the ethical dilemma at hand, recognizing the potential harm caused by discriminatory laws and the implications for athletes' well-being and values.
Gather Information: Collect relevant information about the discriminatory laws, their impact on athletes and communities, and possible consequences of different courses of action.
Consider Stakeholders: Identify all stakeholders involved, including athletes, staff, sponsors, fans, and affected communities. Consider their perspectives, rights, and interests when weighing potential actions.
Explore Alternatives: Generate alternative courses of action that align with ethical principles and desired outcomes. Consider both boycotting and engagement strategies, evaluating their potential benefits and drawbacks.
Make a Decision: Based on careful analysis of available information and ethical considerations, make a decision that best reflects the organization's values, stakeholder interests, and long-term goals.
Implement and Evaluate: Act on the decision made and monitor its impact. Continually assess whether the chosen course of action is achieving the desired outcomes and adjust strategies if necessary.
By following this ethical decision-making model, sport leaders can approach the issue thoughtfully and consider the perspectives of all stakeholders involved.
Conclusion
Navigating ethical dilemmas related to discriminatory laws requires careful consideration of various factors. While boycotting may serve as a powerful statement against discrimination, sport leaders must also consider potential consequences for athletes and explore alternative strategies for change. By using the ethical decision-making model outlined in this chapter, leaders can make informed choices that prioritize inclusivity, athlete well-being, and long-term impact, upholding the ethical principles essential to sport.