Businesses, Sports and Public Debates Over National Moral Character

This week saw the end of one boycott and the start of another.

In North Carolina, months after the boycott by businesses and the NCAA began over the state’s anti-transgender “bathroom bill,” the Legislature passed a bill removing the restrictions, the governor signed it, and the NCAA removed its ban on holding tournaments in the state.

In New York, as Fox host and commentator Bill O’Reilly settled five cases of sexual harassment, and new charges were made, his show’s advertising supporters finally took notice. Five top-flight auto manufacturers, three health care companies and Allstate Insurance have withdrawn their advertising from his show. More may follow.

Since the start of the national debate over gay marriage specifically and LGBTA rights in general, national and international businesses have become vocal about their positions on political issues -- especially in states and shows attracting national news. CEOs from Apple, PayPal, Yelp and Eli Lilly weighed in on Indiana’s 2015 law permitting discrimination against gays. The NFL and the NBA are warning Texas over its own proposed bathroom bill. And, back in 2010, popular rock bands canceled concerts in Arizona over that state’s extreme anti-immigrant legislation.

Of course, it is common for businesses, sports groups and celebrities to defend their interests and those of their customers and fans. But, usually that is done with regard to issues related to their areas of activity. Coal and oil companies lobby about energy legislation, for example. Popular singers lobby for copyright enforcement and anti-pirating legislation.

But, this is different. Companies have realized that their national image is at stake; their brand value can be compromised by being associated with particular positions in debates over social issues. They want to choose their positions proactively, not have perceptions or misperceptions attached to them.

So, companies have taken stands to make their positions clear and protect their brands. When Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, Apple, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Ford and Motorola ended their sponsorship of the party’s national convention. They did not want to be associated with the inflammatory character of then-candidate “Trump’s statements about women, immigrants and minorities,” as Apple CEO Tim Cook put it.

While businesses have become more involved in social debates, their involvement tends to focus on one-off events or pieces of legislation. It is usually short-term, either avoiding a particular event or campaigning against a specific bill. Most find it difficult to sustain actions like a boycott over long periods of time.

Sports leagues have taken a prominent role in some of these debates. The decision by the NCAA to stop all tournaments in North Carolina because of its bathroom bill played a key role in rolling back that bill’s restrictions. Once state businesses made clear the economic and social impact the NCAA’s decision would have, the Legislature reluctantly made changes -- enough for the NCAA to rescind its ban.

When Arizona passed a law allowing discrimination against LGBTA people in 2014, the NFL threatened to move the upcoming Super Bowl to another state. Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill.

The power of sports leagues in combating state-sponsored discrimination comes in part from their fans, and those fans are families. From young children to doting grandparents, families participate in, root for and follow sports. From pee-wee leagues to high school and college games to professional teams, sports in America comprises a family activity. Leagues want to be seen as inclusive of everyone and exclude no one. It is an essential part of their all-American image. Businesses that manufacture products or provide services simply lack that kind of loyal and across-the-board following.

The only other major, national institution that consists of such a broad-based family culture are churches. Indeed, it almost goes without saying that religions -- both Christian and non-Christian -- are family based. They provide services for families and their members from birth (e.g., baptism) through marriage to death.

Finally, many religious movements, such as evangelical Christianity, and on some issues Catholicism, have joined the conservative wing of the Republican party. Ironically, it is conservative and often religious Republican legislators who have passed the discriminatory social legislation that sports leagues like the NCAA and the NFL have lobbied against. Perhaps the greatest irony is that the two family-oriented institutions -- sports and churches -- share many of the same followers.

Death and Evil

On Monday morning, the Washington Post carried a pair of headlining articles. One focused on the mass murder in Aurora last week, the other on a pickup truck crash in Texas. In the first, 12 people were killed and more than 50 wounded, while in the second 14 people were killed and 9 injured.

The first event quickly became a national tragedy; the second did not. The first event generated daily headline stories; the second fell off the main news before the end of the day. The first gained a presidential visit; the second did not.

The first event, the mass murder, was quickly declared to be “evil.” The second, the wreck of the pickup truck, was just an accident, even though more people were killed.

The loss of life and the number of people injured in both of these events were large in scope as well as both tragic and horrifying in their human consequences. But we see one as evil and not the other. Why is that? What is our intuitive definition of evil that motivates us to classify these events in this way?

President Obama twice called the mass murder evil. During his Saturday press conference he said, “Such evil is senseless -- beyond reason.” By his Sunday speech in Aurora, he took the deed’s evil character for granted, referring to the killer as “the perpetrator of this evil act.” Similarly, most news articles and commentaries have assumed that this was an evil deed. There has been no questioning or debate on that point.

So what makes mass murder evil and mass death not? It is clearly not the body count.

Perhaps in part evil comes from premeditation. The killer planned to murder and injure a large number of people. He bought thousands of rounds of ammunition. He purchased an assault rifle and other guns to deliver them to his victims. He protected himself to make it difficult for others to interfere with his murderous actions.

Perhaps our sense of evil comes from its random character. The predator did not care who died as long as someone did. He did not target particular individuals who he thought had wronged him, nor did he target groups of people based on age, racial, religious or other prejudice or hatred. He just wanted to shoot human beings, preferably a lot of them.

The killer must have had a motive, but our sense that his actions were evil does not require us to know it or to take it into account. While we want to know why he did the deed in a (vain?) hope that the information will help us make sense of the horrific event, we do not need that information to determine its evil character.

President Obama made an observation on Saturday that may suggest an answer. He said, “What matters in the end ... [is] how we choose to treat one another, and love one another. It's what we do on a daily basis to give our lives meaning and to give our lives purpose.” While few of us treat everyone as kindly as we should, most of us recognize that our kindness and politeness to others usually comes back to us. We participate in this social agreement.

So if life’s meaning comes from the way we treat and love others, then a person who purposely kills randomly is decidedly evil. Such a person intends to act to harm people not because they have harmed him, but because they are human. He derives meaning by violating the social compact of kindness that most of us recognize. His murderous actions are not about revenge (rightly or wrongly) against an individual who harmed him, but against humanity as a whole, whether children, adults or old people.

In this instance, then, evil is defined as the intentional, premeditated repudiation of the way we understand our ties to other people. However individualistic we are, we sense that this constitutes an attack on the fabric of our society. It is humanity and human society that is somehow seen as the most appropriate target of violence and murder. The people killed in the truck accident tragically lost their lives, but their death was caused by an accident of a moment rather than premeditated evil.