DONATE

Past Campaigns

Past NTC Campaigns

Past Campaigns

Tell CEO Karen Lynch You’re DONE with CVS Health Until They End Hypocritical CRT Trainings

On Wednesday, September 22, in a blistering exposé, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Rufo published insider information revealing the latest major U.S. corporation to go “woke”: CVS Health. In the article, Rufo presents information from multiple whistleblowers detailing a so-called “antiracist” training program that required employees to deconstruct their “privilege.” Trainers told CVS Health employees to circle their identities — “including race, gender, sexuality, and religion” — and then rank themselves accordingly on a “privilege” scale. Larry Merlo, who served as the CEO of CVS Health until January of this year, hosted a conversation with Boston University professor and leading proponent of critical race theory Ibram Kendi, who told more than 25,000 CVS Health employees that Americans are “walking through society completely soaked in racist ideas,” including children as young as two to three years old. “Our kids are basically functioning on racist ideas, choosing who to play with based on the kid’s skin color,” Kendi said. As wage-and-hour CVS Health employees were lectured on their “privilege,” Merlo raked in a salary of $22 million — 618 times the median company wage of $35,529. CVS Health must end its hypocritical critical race theory trainings. Merlo is now retired. His replacement, Karen Lynch, took over as the CEO of CVS Health in February. She also sits on the company’s Board of Directors. Her appointment brings with it an opportunity to end future CRT trainings for CVS Health employees, encouraging an environment in which no one is labeled as inherently racist and everyone is valued equally. Send a message to CEO Karen Lynch: tell her you will no longer support CVS Health until they end their hypocritical CRT Trainings!  

Past Campaigns

Tell the ACLU: Stand by Your Mission — or Be Honest and Change It

On Thursday, July 15, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki made an alarming announcement that the Biden Administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation” about the COVID pandemic. Exactly what the President of the United States and his team deem “disinformation” was not stated. One day later, Psaki doubled down, stating people “shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing disinformation.” If you’re deemed in violation of one social media company’s terms of service, you’re apparently in violation of them all. While the federal government admitted to colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans, our country’s preeminent free speech advocacy organization the ACLU was nowhere to be found. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a storied history of being an objective defender of American civil liberties — however controversial the individual or vile the speech, the ACLU built a reputation around a mission that the Constitution protects everyone. Sadly, in recent years, the ACLU has made a drastic departure from its stated mission. Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU has started letting social justice trends direct its actions. As the New York Times recently exposed, the ACLU can’t decide if it wants to stick to its founding principles or becoming just another soldier in the progressive cause. Join us in holding on the ACLU accountable: state your mission and make it clear! The ACLU is over a century old as had defended the First Amendment rights of everyone from the Nation of Islam to the KKK. Many at the ACLU still believing in defending the rights of all, and they still do occasionally take cases that are highly controversial or benefit groups that are right-of-center. However, the ACLU has generally not engaged in the recent string of free speech cases on college campuses, while it has eagerly jumped on the ‘defund the police’ bandwagon. The organization rallied and fundraised off hatred for President Trump and embraced the extremes of identity politics. Leadership also recently rolled out guidelines that, according to NYT, “suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose ‘values are contrary to our values’ against the potential such a case might give ‘offense to marginalized groups.’” In the words of ACLU founder Ira Glasser, “There are a lot of organizations fighting eloquently for racial justice and immigrant rights. But there’s only one ACLU that is a content-neutral defender of free speech. I fear we’re in danger of losing that.” The ACLU has risen to its current prominence partially because of its principled non-partisan stances, and while its actions were often controversial, it arguably did a lot of good by being a consistent example of principle over partisanship. Organizations are of course free to change their mission, and if the ALCU wants to only champion progressive causes, that is its right. But if it chooses the latter, it must be honest about it and not deceive donors or the public. Use the form on this page to tell the ACLU to make their choice clear: Do they stand for civil liberties for all? Or just for those they agree with?

Past Campaigns

Tell Facebook and Twitter: Make a Clear List of What Speech Is Off Limits

It’s no secret that Facebook and Twitter have done a poor job of fairly and transparently enforcing their content policies. Their CEOs have even acknowledged this from time-to-time and promised to do better, but the problems persist. Facebook and Twitter have lengthy “Community Standards” and a “hateful conduct policy” respectively, but they are highly ambiguous and inconsistently enforced. Prof. Robert P. George proposed a solution that would be simple and fair: “publish a list of beliefs that may not be questioned on the platform.” Use the form on this page to sign the petition demanding that Facebook and Twitter produce clear lists of expressions and ideas they deem off-limits for discussion on social media. Doing so would provide a clear starting point for both the companies and the users to understand what the rules actually are: Users can criticize every government agency except the CDC? Certain racist expressions are banned but calling for a second Hitler is okay? If nothing else, users of the social media platforms would finally know what they were dealing with. Furthermore, both platforms must stop giving blanket reasons for suspensions and bans. “You violated our community standards” isn’t good enough. Which stated belief was transgressed? As a nation, we believe citizens have a right to know exactly what they are accused of. Social media platforms should adopt the same standard. No more arbitrary bans and suspensions for vague reasons. No more excuses. Tell Facebook and Twitter to Make a Clear List and Honor It!

Past Campaigns

Tell Brandeis University to End Its Absurd Oppressive Language List

Want to have a wild picnic with your tribe? According to Brandeis University, three of the words in that sentence constitute “oppressive language” that should not be used. We could have used a trigger warning, but that isn’t allowed either according to Brandies because “The word ‘trigger’ has connections to guns for many people.” These are just a few examples from an absurd catalog of off-limits language labeled the “Oppressive Language List” on Brandeis’ website telling students what words and phrases to avoid lest they “perpetuate oppression.” Join NTC in calling on Brandeis to take down this bizarre list that does a severe disserve to the students coming to them for education! The list has five sections: violent language (“trigger warning,” “take a stab at,” “picnic”), identity-based language (“congressman,” “walk-in,” “crazy”), language that doesn’t say what we mean (“victim,” “abusive relationship”), culturally appropriative language (“tribe,” “spirit animal”), and person-first alternatives (“addict,” “homeless person”). The absurdity is self-evident. Can students not say “picnic table”? If “trigger warning” is out because of violent imagery, can a chemistry student not say that a certain process “triggers a reaction?” If Brandeis is concerned about gendered words or words with loose ties to slavery, why is it handing out Bachelors’ and Masters’ degrees? A footer on the Oppressive Language List website ominously declares, “This list will grow and change all the time,” and encourages students to “share additional suggestions” that can be added to the compilation of prohibited words. In other words: the rules will keep changing, the list of restricted words will only get larger, and the madness will never end. In a section describing its English major, Brandeis’ website says, “The study of English is an astonishingly rich and varied field. English spans history, from the Middle Ages to the present day. It spans geography, taking on different shapes in English-speaking cultures around the world.” This is exactly right. English has adopted words and phrases from many backgrounds, and many words have multiple meanings. Brandeis claims to teach English majors to “write skillfully and stylishly.” Students simply cannot do that if they must omit every word for which someone could potentially be offended. Brandeis students pay a cool $73,100 a year for their education. They deserve better than runaway political correctness that teaches them to be poor communicators who see oppression around every corner. Use the form on this page to send a message to Program Director Sarah Berg telling her to end this oppressively silly list! Update (06/29/21): Brandeis has removed the word “picnic” from their list.

Past Campaigns

Tell Lawmakers to Rescind CAIR Support after NPR Reveals Culture of Harassment and Misogyny

NPR has just published an extensive investigation into the Council on American Islamic Relations that reveals CAIR’s national leadership has routinely ignored and covered up widespread misogyny and sexual harassment in its offices around the country. For CAIR’s 25th anniversary celebration last year, over 100 lawmakers (both Republicans and Democrats) sent formal letters of praise, which CAIR leaders published in the event’s program. Now the devastating NPR report makes clear that the toxic culture among CAIR’s leadership includes misogyny and corruption. Lawmakers, especially those who proudly tweet #MeToo and “Believe Women,” have a responsibility to demand accountability and transparency from CAIR’s national leaders. Sign the Petition to demand these lawmakers stop supporting CAIR! The biggest bombshell in the NPR report is a prominent CAIR leader who has been accused of spousal abuse, bigamy, and harassment of subordinate employees – yet continued to be praised by CAIR national leaders even when he resigned in January. NPR’s reporting also reveals a climate of bullying and intimidation inside the organization, with many former staffers afraid to speak on the record: “The former employees described a range of complaints, from a gender pay gap and women being shut out of closed-door meetings at the national office to women feeling tokenized and the career development of men being prioritized over women.” One former staffer Jinan Shbat has created the CAIR Victims Forum. She told NPR: “The amount of women who have been reaching out to us who are like, ‘I used to work for CAIR. Thank you so much for finally doing this and speaking out,’ ” Shbat said in an interview. “So many women have basically told us that they experienced a lot of the same sexism and misogyny.” California religious scholar Aslam Abdullah tells NPR that “numerous women have come to him with what he regards as credible allegations of harassment, sexual misconduct or unfair treatment against senior men within CAIR or CAIR affiliates.” Even CAIR’s former board chair Parvez Ahmed has “been critical of CAIR leadership over issues like inclusion and gender equity” and insists: “The leadership of CAIR owes the community an explanation as to who knew what and when and how those complaints were handled.” Lawmakers may not have had any idea what was going on when they sent their letters of support, but now they do. Sign our petition on this page to demand they retract their support and call for transparency and accountability from CAIR.

Past Campaigns

Hundreds of NTC Advocates Told NYC Mayor deBlasio: Stop Choosing Who Gets To Exercise 1ST Amendment Rights

In the darkest days of COVID-19 NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio enforced draconian lockdown measures that prevented people from gathering with family and faith communities. But, DeBlasio and his flunkies made one exception: George Floyd protests. When NYC Mayor deBlasio made it clear that free speech is for those who support ideas with which he agrees NTC advocates told him that the 1st amendment is for everyone. DeBlasio was replaced by Eric Adams in the 2021 election. NTC will continue defending the first amendment rights for New Yorkers and people everywhere.

Past Campaigns

Tell Amazon: Stop Selective “Woke” Book Censorship

Amazon, by far the world’s largest bookseller, has until recently promoted itself as an open marketplace of ideas, with all kinds of transgressive and provocative works for sale, including Hitler’s notorious book “Mein Kampf.” But on February 21, Amazon suddenly removed any trace of When Harry Became Sally, a book published three years ago by Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan T. Anderson. Described as “sensitive” and “fair-minded” by professors at top medical schools, the policy treatise takes a traditional stance on the controversial issue of transgenderism. Amazon did not inform the author or publisher of its decision, and the company has refused to comment on the sudden ban on a book published several years ago. Bizarrely, other books by Anderson are still for sale on Amazon as are books by other authors that take a similar stance on transgenderism. Amazon’s actions suggest that it has adopted an ominous new “woke” censorship approach where certain books suddenly become problematic and disappear. Others – like “Mein Kampf” – remain openly for sale, with no discernable universal standard. Amazon needs to hear from consumers like you that such arbitrary yet highly politicized censorship must stop before it spreads further. Sign the petition demanding that Amazon stop the hypocritical censorship and restore Anderson’s book to its virtual shelves! Update 3/15/21: Amazon issued a statement after several U.S. Senators issued a complaint. The statement claims that Amazon will not sell books that characterize transgenderism as a mental illness. Anderson contends that his book does nothing of the sort.

Past Campaigns

Tell the ACLU to Set the Record Straight on False Accusations that Ruined Lives at Smith College

The New York Times recently published a scathing critique of an alleged racism incident at Smith College that turned out to be nothing of the sort. The ACLU championed the false claim and has yet to retract its statements or apologize for its misleading campaign that seriously harmed an accused janitor and cafeteria worker. Join NTC in demanding that the ACLU apologize and set the record straight! In 2018, Smith student Oumou Kanoute claimed that white workers called school security on her while she was minding her own business and eating lunch on Smith College’s campus, where she was working over the summer. She claimed that it was a clear case of racial profiling, and the ACLU, Smith College, and many news outlets took her at her word. The ACLU created the “eating while black” campaign, holding the incident up as proof of everyday racism. Three months later, a law firm hired by Smith College found out what really happened that day. A summer camp rented space from Smith College and thus for the sake of child safety, some areas became off-limits to everyone else. A cafeteria worker told Kantoute that the area was off-limits, but didn’t press the issue. A janitor saw that there was an unauthorized person in the area and followed protocol by calling security. A security guard showed up and politely asked her to leave. Kantoute responded by posting the names and pictures of those who supposedly racially profiled her on social media, and the story blew up to national news, fanned by the ACLU. The janitor was placed on leave and the cafeteria worker been subjected to rampant harassment, including people leaving notes at her home calling her a racist. She’s struggled to find a new job because she’s become locally infamous. When the truth came out, the ACLU didn’t back down. According to the Times: Rahsaan Hall, racial justice director for the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts and Ms. Kanoute’s lawyer, cautioned against drawing too much from the investigative report, as subconscious bias is difficult to prove. Nor was he particularly sympathetic to the accused workers. “It’s troubling that people are more offended by being called racist than by the actual racism in our society,” he said. “Allegations of being racist, even getting direct mailers in their mailbox, is not on par with the consequences of actual racism.” The ACLU makes a lot of noise about civil liberties and equality, but this incident shows they put a preferred narrative over anything resembling equality. The organization should have gotten the facts before spreading Katoute’s narrative, but now that the truth has been revealed, they have a responsibility to reverse the damage as much as possible. Using the form on this page, you can send an email to the ACLU demanding that they retract their previous statements, set the record straight, and apologize to the innocent people whose lives they helped ruin.   Campaign Update 3/10/21: The ACLU has removed the page on their website that uncritically repeats Kanoute’s false narrative, but they have not made a statement or removed other pages on their website that categorize the incident as racial profiling.

Past Campaigns

Stand Up for an Employee Fired for Using Parler and Gab

In a new low for cancel culture, The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency fired Colleen Oefelein for having accounts on the social media sites Parler and Gab. CEO Jennifer De Chiara claims she did this in the name of “unity, equality, and social justice.” She has those terms entirely backward. Sign the petition to demand that De Chiara give Oefelein her job back immediately! The news broke via a series of tweets from De Chiara: This leaves little room for doubt that Colleen Oefelein was fired solely because of her presence on these social media platforms. There have been no reports of her posting anything objectionable on these accounts or doing anything that could negatively impact her work, her clients, or her employer’s reputation. There has undoubtedly been unsavory activity on both Parler and Gab, but that is far from the only activity. Millions of decent people have sought out new outlets in fear or protest as Facebook and Twitter have increased their crackdowns on certain forms of controversial speech. The danger here is articulated well by Spiked: “Now anyone who merely uses an app is automatically tarnished thanks to the content others might have posted on it. We have reached the stage of cancel culture where you can be canceled for what others might have said. This is sinister.” One also must wonder what “unity” means to Ms. De Chiara if she finds all 15 million Parler users offensive. The De Chiara Agency’s actions are a legal gray area, but not a moral one. This is exactly the type of thing that causes division and ruins our ability to engage freely with those who have different viewpoints.  Sign the petition demanding Ms. Oefelein’s immediate reinstatement. Joining a social media platform should not cost someone their livelihood, especially not from a company that claims unity as a guiding principle.

Past Campaigns

Tell Twitter to Stop the Hypocritical Censorship

On January 8th, Twitter announced that it had permanently suspended @realDonaldTrump, President Donald Trump’s personal account, “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” after they had determined three days prior that he violated their Glorification of Violence policy. Sign the petition to join New Tolerance Campaign in calling on Twitter to apply their policy uniformly to all government handles regardless of nationality, or reinstate President Trump’s account. Consistent standards of tolerance are critical to a healthy and stable society. At issue is whether Twitter will finally apply its policies in a consistent manner. While Twitter has ended Mr. Trump’s access to its platform, it continues to allow other government leaders to use Twitter even though they routinely glorify violence on Twitter in ways that fit Twitter’s assessment of Mr. Trump’s policy violation.  The prime example is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who routinely calls for violence against the United States and Israel, and has used Twitter to issue death threats. Ironically, the Iranian government bans its own citizens from using Twitter and has cut off all access to the Internet within its borders as a means of squashing speech and anti-government protests. Another troubling example is the still-allowed Twitter handle for the official Chinese Embassy in D.C., which recently tweeted “Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur [sic] women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.” This tweet references the Chinese government’s imprisonment of over 1 million Chinese Uyghur Muslims into re-education concentration camps, actions that violate many international human rights statutes. Twitter’s blatant inconsistency in the application of its own policies is highly problematic as it creates and exacerbates divides in society that make people less tolerant towards each other. Twitter must act consistently, especially when it comes to the intersection between speech and violence.

Past Campaigns

NTC Activists Pledged to Boycott Mulan until Disney Stopped Thanking Human Rights Abusers

Disney has been kowtowing to the oppressive Chinese Communist Party, going out of their way to thank them in Mulan‘s credits despite their grotesque violations of human rights. You helped send a message by pledging to boycott the movie. Sadly, Disney never removed their thanks, but since Mulan is no longer an upcharge on Disney+, NTC decided to close the campaign. Here’s what happened: Disney’s animated Mulan from 1998 is about defying stereotypes, being true to yourself, honoring family, and fighting evil to protect the innocent. So why is the remake not only ignoring the plight of the Uyghur Muslims in China but thanking the very people responsible for their torment? The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) human rights abuses against the Uyghur people and other minorities are nothing short of horrifying. Chinese authorities have quietly abducted over 1 million innocent people without a word to their families and sent them to dystopian concentration camps. From there, they ship the captured people across China to be used as slave labor in factories that they cannot leave. The CCP helps themselves to everything from detainees’ hair to their vital organs. All of this is done in the name of stamping out the Uyghurs’ religion and culture and trying to make them into uniform, docile Chinese citizens – the exact opposite of everything Mulan encourages kids to be. None of this stopped Disney from filming a large portion of the new live-action Mulan in the Xinjiang region where these atrocities are primarily taking place. What’s worse, Disney thanked the Chinese Communist Party Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Committee and the Bureau of Public Security in Turpan (a city in the region) in the movie’s credits. These are the people directly responsible for this oppression and the propaganda campaigns trying to cover it up. Furthermore, in 2019 Disney CEO Bob Iger threatened to stop filming in Georgia if the state’s “heartbeat” anti-abortion bill went into effect. Uyghur women are routinely forced to have abortions by the government, but apparently, that isn’t a deal-breaker for Iger. Removing a couple lines in the credits is hardly enough to make amends, but, as far as this movie goes, much of the damage has already been done. Mulan embodies values that Disney is failing to live up to itself.

Past Campaigns

Demand ADL Hold Al Sharpton Accountable for His Anti-Semitic Actions

Political activist Rev. Al Sharpton has a long history of anti-Semitism, including a leading role in one of the worst anti-Semitic riots in U.S. history. Yet the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – whose founding mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” – has chosen to partner with Sharpton without even asking for a public apology. ADL leadership needs to hear from Americans of conscience like you that this betrayal of core values for political expediency is unacceptable. The ADL’s stated mission is “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” To that end, the organization once spoke unequivocally about Sharpton. In a 1992 report in the aftermath of the Crown Heights riots, the ADL assigned Sharpton “a leading role” in the pogrom and named him as one of nine “Black Figures and Community Activists who have Promoted Anti-Semitism.” The report also noted that Sharpton co-chaired an event honoring notorious bigot Louis Farrakhan. In 1992, Sharpton defended gross anti-Semitic comments by Professor Leonard Jeffries, going so far as to declare, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” Protesters led by Sharpton called Jews “bloodsuckers” and threatened to “burn and loot the Jews.” One demonstrator then did exactly that, shooting seven people in a store. After years of confronting Sharpton’s anti-Semitic track-record, the ADL has recently joined forces with Sharpton. ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has appeared on Sharpton’s MSNBC show, joined him for Capitol Hill press conferences, and partnered with Sharpton to boycott Facebook. As Tablet magazine noted, ADL CEO Greenblatt has “refused even to seek out the most minor price from Sharpton for bringing him back into the fold of acceptability—not even a simple apology that would at least telegraph a distaste for anti-Semitism to Sharpton’s many followers. Greenblatt couldn’t even muster that small gesture.” The ADL needs to hear your voice. Using the form on this page, take a minute to send an email or tweet to the ADL demanding the organization stop betraying its founding mission. No partnering with Sharpton until he takes demonstrable action to atone for his anti-Semitic behavior!

Past Campaigns

Call Out The New York Times’ Op-ed Hypocrisy 

The New York Times has violated its own standards of viewpoint tolerance in its editorial page. Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s controversial op-ed met with widespread outrage leading to the top opinion editor losing his job and an apology from The Times for not providing more context and heavier fact-checking. As if forgetting this apology, The Times has now run a straight Chinese government propaganda piece without any such measures. Join us in calling on The Times to stop this dangerously misleading hypocrisy.  On Oct 1, 2020, the NYT published an op-ed called “Hong Kong Is China, Like It or Not” by Chinese politician Regina Ip that gives mainland China’s perspective on their violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Ip misleadingly presents the pro-Democracy protestors as minority radicals and the Chinese government as the savior of peace and stability, employing all sorts of rhetorical gymnastics to downplay the government’s brutality and undermining of Hong Kong’s democracy. Take this passage for example:  To some, the new national security law is especially chilling because it seems simultaneously vague and very severe. But many laws are vague, constructively so. And this one only seems severe precisely because it fills longstanding loopholes — about subversion, secession, local terrorism, collusion with external forces. One person’s “severe” is someone else’s intended effect. To summarize in plain language: “to some, our national security law seems vague and severe. That’s because we wanted it to be vague and severe.”  Contrast this with the outcry over the Cotton NYT op-ed from June 2020, “Tom Cotton: Send in the Troops.” This op-ed by a prominent U.S. Senator calls for the military to be mobilized against rioters. While this is obviously a controversial stance, as then opinion-page editor James Bennett said, “Readers who might be inclined to oppose Cotton’s position need to be fully aware of it, and reckon with it, if they hope to defeat it.” The op-ed is now preceded by a very long editor’s note saying the op-ed should not have been published without substantial revision. It lists several objections, such as “the assertion that police officers ‘bore the brunt’ of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged.” It claims that the headline is overly “incendiary” and the tone of the piece too harsh. The editor’s note concludes, “we failed to offer appropriate additional context — either in the text or the presentation — that could have helped readers place Senator Cotton’s views within a larger framework of debate.”  Where is this “additional context” with Ip’s op-ed? Ip makes her own dubious claims that misrepresent the situation in Hong Kong, arguably worse than those The Times stated Cotton made. And it’s hard to get much harsher than Ip’s defense of “vague and severe” crackdowns. Where is the NYT’s concern this time? This is an appalling double-standard.  The Times requests that readers email them to “report errors regarding our coverage” so we’re asking you to join us in doing just that! Use the form on this page to send an email demanding that they add the context and fact-checking they promised after the Cotton op-ed to Ip’s op-ed and apply their standards equally moving forward, lest they expose themselves as caring more about combating the ideas of their domestic political opponents than those of oppressive foreign regimes.

Past Campaigns

Tell the NBA to Stop Its Hypocrisy on Racism

When an NBA referee favors one team or makes a bad call, fans are outraged because basketball only works if everyone is held to the same rules. So why is the NBA not crying “foul” on a black player who screamed a racially inappropriate term at a white player during a game? Racism is racism regardless of the participants. Join us in calling on NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to play by his own rules and address this instance of racism as the NBA has addressed others in the past! During the Aug 21 Los Angeles Clippers v. Dallas Mavericks game, Montrezl Harrell called Luka Doncic a “bitch ass white boy.” After some internet backlash, Harrell apologized to Doncic, but the NBA stayed mum, leading many, including the hosts of TNT’s Inside the NBA and rising sports journalist Gary Sheffield, Jr. to condemn the League’s hypocrisy. The NBA has recently gone all-in on racial justice. Last year, the league enacted a zero-tolerance policy for fans who shout racial slurs at players. They have also encouraged players to include certain league-approved social justice slogans on their jerseys such as “I can’t breathe” and “Justice Now” (“Free Hong Kong” is noticeably absent from the list). When the altercation occurred, Harrell’s jersey asked “How Many More.” Doncic had “Equality” printed over his number. It’s no secret that players taunt each other with profane insults during the heat of the game, but as many have observed, if the roles were reversed, the NBA would have reacted publicly in a strong manner. The league would have likely imposed a fine or suspension, as they have on players, owners, and fans in the past. To quote another NBA-approved jersey slogan: Enough! With just a few clicks, you can send a message to Commissioner Silver urging him to take immediate disciplinary action and show that his league actually cares about improving race relations in America, not just co-opting slogans to sell more merch.

Scroll to Top