When the Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivey on Monday for “conduct detrimental to the team,” team management succeeded in exposing their own detrimental conduct toward free speech.
Ivey’s shocking act was not an assault on someone or a bet on a game.
He did not call for violence.
Ivey expressed his religious beliefs by criticizing the NBA’s Pride Month celebrations.
There’s no question that private companies have the right to control employees’ on-the-job speech, including barring demonstrations such as kneeling during the national anthem.
But the Ivey controversy exposes the hypocrisy of sports associations and teams as they pursue both corporate virtue-signaling and athlete speech restrictions.
Companies in various fields assert the right to condition contracts on the possibility of termination due to public behavior or comments deemed detrimental to the company.
Ivey’s release, based on words spoken off the basketball court, appears to be such a case.
Note, however, the lack of consistency.
Just as actors like Rachel Zegler have tanked their own movies to advance their progressive political viewpoints, athletes have routinely espoused controversial views on racial divisions or law enforcement without losing their contracts.
Recently, NBA teams supported athletes espousing anti-ICE sentiments.
In other words, it’s not the advocacy, but the viewpoint that these companies focus on.
It is content-based regulation of speech.
At the same time, the NFL and NBA require players to wear and espouse views that some of them — like some of their fellow Americans — oppose.
Ivey was objecting that Pride Month, in his view, means the NBA is espousing “unrighteous” lifestyles.
He was not attacking the Bulls or the game; he was asserting that he does not support the virtues or values being endorsed by the company.
Many of us were offended by some of Ivey’s other social media postings that referred to Catholicism as a “false religion.”
He also drew the ire of many by telling a fan, “God does not hear your prayer if you are a sinner.”
However, it appears that his criticism of the LGBTQ community and Pride Month is what ended his NBA contract.
Ivey objected to the advocacy required by the league, saying, “They proclaim it. They show it to the world. They say, ‘Come join us for Pride Month,’ to celebrate unrighteousness.”
The problem of “talent” becoming notorious has long been a focus of sports and entertainment contracts.
Hateful or divisive public comments can impact a brand or corporate image: For example, a team does not have to continue an association with a racist spewing hateful remarks about fans.
Yet the Ivey controversy should force a discussion of the countervailing responsibilities of the teams and the NBA.
Some of us have previously criticized the rampant racial virtue-signaling of the NFL, with its giant statements in the end zones and on players’ helmets.
Many fans would like these teams to stop lecturing them and simply play sports.
We do not need morality or civics lessons from the likes of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
However, if the NFL and NBA are going to get into the business of shaping fans’ values, they may need to accept greater leeway for athletes who hold opposing values.
Instead, they’re expecting athletes like Ivey to effectively endorse league-approved values while barring them from expressing dissenting views.
This is not the first such controversy.
Years ago, former coach Tony Dungy was the subject of a cancel campaign because he expressed his faith at a pro-life rally.
Former Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio was punished for expressing a dissenting view of what happened on Jan. 6 and what he saw as excessive sentences handed down to its participants.
Likewise, Chicago Cubs player Matt Shaw was recently the target of a campaign to trade him after he attended the funeral of Charlie Kirk.
Sports organizations, like other businesses, have every right to bar protests and political statements at games.
They should, however, apply the same standard to themselves.
It’s time to get virtue signaling and social statements out of sports.
Teams need to stop picking sides on social and political issues while blocking opposing views from their athletes.
Once they’re out of the business of shaping public values and views, teams will be in a better position to demand that athletes avoid controversial public statements that alienate fans or harm a brand.
Alternatively, teams could simply bar such player commentary on the court or on the field — and allow the athletes the same freedom of expression outside the game that the teams themselves enjoy.
None of this means that Jaden Ivey’s specific statements are right or admirable.
It only means that if the Bulls want him to just play basketball, they should do the same.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The post In ditching Jaden Ivey, Chicago Bulls expose the NBA’s hypocrisy appeared first on New York Post.
