Is DEI killing the WNBA?
As an observer of the markets, I have noticed a stark difference between a company that supports a particular economic theory and a company seeking to objectively satisfy customers. Theories disconnected from reality create cognitive dissonance and harm the smooth functioning of the organization while a focus on customer satisfaction enables the company to positively affect the lives of customers.
Economic theories
are subject to the judgment of the public. Some are known to impact profits and
customer response. For instance, Marxism comes to mind. Marxism is an anti-productive
theory that disrupts the free marketplace.
Which brings
up the WNBA[1]
sports league. How did we get where we are with the WNBA? Few have been able to
tell us the causes of such practices as flagrant fouls, thuggish play, no-foul
fouls, fists to the neck, kicks to the groin, elbows to the face, and bleeding
lips, none of which should happen in a “professional” sport. Is it possible
that Marxist theories are causing these practices? Few would think so, but it is my conviction that the WNBA's problems rest squarely on Marxism.
Someone has
said about the WNBA: “We are witnessing greatness being micro-managed by mediocrity.”[2]
This is the case, but the question is “why?”
If you want
to understand what is wrong with the Indiana Fever basketball team and why this
team struggles, I suggest it is not the Fever[3]
alone that is struggling – the problem is a league-wide policy called DEI (Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion). It is this policy that is driving away athletes and
fans from the WNBA.
The basic
premise of DEI is Marxist class warfare. DEI is an anti-capitalist concept that
seeks to address class divisions and fight racism, classism, and other similar
isms. Under Marxist principles, society is considered to be the owner of the
individual who must live for the sake of the collective known as “the workers
of the world.” Under DEI, every player in the WNBA is considered to be a
soldier in the army against capitalism – and she is beholden to advancing DEI
policies – when she does not, she is considered an enemy against the struggle.
Under
Marxist management of society, individuals are broken down into collectives used
as armies to battle against capitalism. Through the Marxist critique of
history, the idea that capitalism must be destroyed is a dogma. Marxism holds
that, eventually, a new “socialist man/woman” will emerge and take over society
– this, they tell us, is historically inevitable. You cannot doubt this; it is
the basis of Marxist materialism.
But do not
worry, this final dictatorship will eventually disappear as communism liberates
man from capitalist exploitation – although, in fact, there are no assurances
that the destruction of capitalism will bring anything like “freedom” for man. On
the contrary, all indications are that it will bring poverty and social decline,
the police state, and even worse class warfare waged by ruthless elites.
Nevertheless,
DEI is merely one of the methods for the destruction of capitalism, and
advocates of DEI are intent on using its principles to undermine the capitalist
nature of society. It is a form of incrementalism intended to advance socialism
piecemeal through small steps that, taken together, and over time, will lead to
the eventual victory of socialism. (Parenthetically, this revolutionary aspect
of DEI and Marxism provides the basis for the idea that advocates of communism
can use “any means necessary” to bring about the victory of DEI in society –
which means that violence is a “valid” method of turning society in the “right
direction” toward socialism.)
To provide a
foundation for my view that DEI guides the WNBA, I would like to note that the
management of the WNBA is openly and deliberately in favor of DEI policies. The
NBA[4]
owns the WNBA and provides much of the funding for it. On its website, the
league declares its “adherence” to DEI policies:
“Diversity
and inclusion are central to our game, and we believe that they are catalysts
for innovation. We know that our business is stronger when we leverage our
differences to generate more and better ideas, sparking innovation that further
connects us to our fans and our communities.”[5]
I would like
to suggest that the above policy statement by the NBA (and WNBA) is PR puffery with
no connection to benefits for the league and players. It is intended to suggest
that seeking social goals (rather than quality play) will endear the NBA
(and WNBA) to the fans. Further, it suggests that DEI policies actually fight
racism and other differences – and that this fight against “social” unfairness will
produce better basketball.
I beg to
differ. Better basketball cannot happen when the league’s policy focus is given
over to diversity, equity, and inclusion. These policies are actually
counter-productive to better basketball and create less diversity, more inequality,
and virulent exclusion. Yes, that is right; DEI policies create prejudice,
unfairly treated athletes, and discrimination (as we see today).
Over the
last three years, a certain player has ascended to prominence in the WNBA. Her singular
skills have turned over the apple cart of the WNBA so to speak. In fact, her
quality of play is so impressive that she confounds the intent of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. This is because she is supremely good at playing
basketball.
Caitlin
Clark (especially to her fans) is not an example of diversity (she is white), not
an example of equity (she is earning millions in endorsements), and she only
needs to be left free to play if she is to find the inclusion she so richly
deserves. In effect, she “includes” herself by her play and does not
need to have anyone pushing political buttons for her sake. All she needs is
the proverbial “level playing field” and she will do fine, thank you.
The victims
of DEI are the athletes (like this newcomer) who do not need to be propped up
by DEI policies - the athletes who distinguish themselves by their talent and
genius. Yet, the WNBA has gone to war against these athletes, and would prefer to
drum them out of the league rather than bask in the new glory they have brought,
the new dollars they earn, and the singular and individual status of their play.
Caitlin Clark is the new face of the league and the older veterans, including
the management of the WNBA, seem wedded to DEI.
Caitlin
Clark has broken the mold for how to play basketball on the professional level.
She has shown that it is possible for a player to earn millions of dollars despite
the fact that few other “women” in the sport have done this. She is a true phenomenon
and the “veteran” players against whom she competes are acting like thugs
against her, as if unfairness is a legitimate way to fight racism and other differences.
They are using the aura of racial victimhood as justification for victimizing a
unique talent who fights with skill and genius. On what planet has this ever
been justified?
To
illustrate this, we must look at how DEI is practiced in the marketplace.
DIVERSITY
The first
goal of DEI is to encourage diversity of all types (to the exclusion primarily of
whites), using a leftist form of identitarian[6]
politics. Diversity policies claim to correct circumstances that are thought to
have been unfair toward specific ethnic and/or gender groups. Note that this is
a social goal, not a goal to create better basketball. And this is the problem.
In the sport
of basketball, capitalism actually achieves the goal of diversity by letting
the cream rise to the top regardless of color or other limiting circumstances.
Judging from history, basketball, in particular, has been significantly
diverse. So why do we need a political solution (DEI) when diversity already
exists in the sport? Just go to a basketball game and you will see that fans of
diverse colors cheer for athletes of diverse colors. There is job security in
basketball if you keep scoring points.
The mistake
here is to think that it is possible to promote diversity without experiencing an
impact on quality. This is untrue. When you pit collective identity against quality
of work, you frustrate the effort to promote quality of work. When an athlete
is promoted because of the color of the skin, other athletes of different
colors are necessarily excluded.
In fact, the
goal of diversity under DEI is a lie. If the company truly wants to promote
diversity, it will only use the standard of high quality in judging its
employees.
But there is
more. There are other negative aspects of DEI regarding diversity. For
instance, in order to promote diversity, the organization must elevate certain employees
to better positions because of presumed victimhood in the past. It would favor
these employees over others presumed to be members of other groups. Lowering
the job statuses of more effective employees robs them of positions they would
have otherwise earned, and it drives them to leave the company for “personal”
reasons.
To prove that
the company is serious about diversity, the Human Resources department must hire
and promote employees who have specific “looks” regardless of work ethic. When
the company sees that the quality produced by its employees has declined, it
will develop programs that require quality employees (those that are still
there) to “help” the mediocre employees by doing their jobs for them. The
result of this is that the elevated employees consider themselves “entitled”
regardless of work ethic. And the better employees leave and start their own companies
(filling the competitive gap in society), re-opening the market to better
products and services (which puts the DEI-based company out of business).
Equity
Equity, of
course, involves pay and ownership. In order to tip the scales of success in
favor of the new diversity, the so-called “diverse” employees must be paid the
salaries that they would have otherwise earned (if they were productive). They
would be elevated to positions of power but only because of their identities –
not their abilities. This is a public relations move that signals to society
that the company also wants customers with those qualities, and does not
care about customers associated with so-called “oppressors” of the past. The
fallacy of all this is the notion that today’s people suffer exclusion in the
same way that (long-dead) people suffered exclusion. That does not always
follow and the only way to correct the bad policies of the past is to stop
engaging in exclusion and give everyone the same chance.
Inclusion
When
mediocre employees are elevated through pay and stock ownership, they signal
that they prefer to collaborate only with other mediocre employees which causes
a general decline in production and profits, as well as a decline in customers.
The idea of inclusion, therefore, leads, over time, to the exclusion of employees
who exceed quality standards. Again, this comes from the false notion that “capitalism”
can only be corrected by “putting your thumb on the scales” to favor people who
have been “wronged” in the past. What people do not see is that the wrongs of
the past, do not affect the present generation, and correcting them only leads
to the wrongs of the present – exclusion brought about by DEI.
Moving back
to the WNBA, what you are seeing (in today’s fan) is anger, lowering ticket
prices, and boring games. The fans are being excluded also. In the WNBA, you have
an organization sidestepping the idea of quality basketball by claiming that
the best way to get better basketball is through DEI. They use PR and marketing
gimmicks to “build up” mediocre players who cannot play at the level of Caitlin
Clark. CC22 is also brought down by blaming her for thinking she is “too good”
or for being too selfish, and making too much money. Hence, the beatings.
This is an
example of an immoral concept known as envy. It often happens that when an
individual distinguishes him or herself for a particular skill, the others
around that individual criticize him or her of being “full of themselves” or “too
good for their britches.” Ayn Rand called this the “hatred of the good for
being the good,” and it is a serious social problem today made even worse
because it is deemed just. I have great regard for the struggle that the “good”
individual must face, the doubts he or she experiences and the dread of knowing
that no matter how hard he or she tries, someone will always be there to tear
it all down, criticize it, and destroy it. Being able to “buck up” in the face
of this unnecessary cruelty takes a terrible struggle.
When DEI
policies are manifested in operational failures, league management feels it
must develop PR campaigns to fool the customers about what is really going on.
This forces good athletes to flee to better work climates. Even worse, the WNBA
enlists its referees to tip the scales by “helping” the mediocre players win
games. Again, this does not fool the fans and only lowers the esteem of the
league and players. The advocates of DEI, because of all the damage they do to
their best athletes, are doing evil. And they should know better.
In order to
correct this situation, the WNBA must abandon its racist and sexist DEI and
Marxist policies and focus on fairness and quality play regardless of skin
color or other “identities.” Fairness is what the fans want and until the WNBA self-corrects,
the league will progressively self-destruct. As for CC22, get out as fast as
you can. Find another sport that is not full of bigots and mediocrities. I will
be there to cheer you on.
Robert
Villegas
Robert
Villegas is a published author of over 120 books and publications. He is a
former manager in a transportation company and has also worked in other industries
in various parts of the world. Politically, he is neither progressive nor
conservative while harboring agreement with laissez faire economic principles
like those of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Ayn Rand. His books can be
found on Amazon in various formats as well as Barnes and Noble and other
retailers.
[1]
Women’s National Basketball Association
[2]
Fans Booe Stephanie White as she CRASHES OUT on Caitlin Clark – Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAg0Cf_YFk0&t=627s (Parenthesis Mine)
[3]
Indiana Fever Women’s Professional Basketball Team
[4]
National Basketball Association (Men’s)
[6] relating
to or supporting the political interests of a particular racial, ethnic, or
national group,
Comments
Post a Comment