That Australian sporting codes are embracing pride rounds reflects a welcome change of attitude and behaviour towards LGBTIQA+ people — and exemplifies the ethical leadership and change of tone required for organisational policies, practices and culture to change.
This is why — despite the kerfuffle surrounding the National Basketball League’s (NBL) inaugural pride round — we need to see the initiative as a success, as well as an important step in the long slog towards full inclusion and equality.
What happened? Having dodged Manly’s mistake of announcing a pride jersey without consulting players, the NBL still wound up with multiple players refusing to don the rainbow logo and/or attend awareness training on grounds of religion or culture. After media scrutiny, their teammates stuck with their usual jerseys to protect their fellow players from being, as described in a Twitter statement, “targeted”, “shamed”, “vilified” and made to feel they no longer “have a safe place in our sport”.
The irony of this complaint — the same from LGBTQIA+ people that gave rise to pride rounds in the first place — is hard to miss. Yet at the same time the response by the league and organisations like Pride in Sport to individual player and team dissent was measured and perfectly pitched.
“Our position is not to force or mandate anyone to wear the jersey and we are not here to impose our views on to anyone else,” an NBL spokesman said. “Our job is to love and support people without judgment.”
Pride in Sport’s Beau Newell said: “We need to take a step back and acknowledge that this is the first time a pride round is happening in the NBL and to just have a very small handful of players say they are not comfortable wearing the jersey, doesn’t mean it’s not a success.”
I agree. Even 10 years ago the concept of a major sporting code endorsing diverse sexualities and genders was unthinkable. Now multiple Australian sporting codes have high-profile inclusion initiatives that most players participate in, and studies suggest they’re also supported by many of those employed in sport.
It’s also impossible to demand ethical accountability for individuals without respecting their moral agency, even when we disagree or are mystified with what their conscience instructs. To have the freedom to live according to one’s own values (within the confines of the law, of course) is among the most treasured liberty of citizens in a free society.
In a diverse society like ours, where 30% of citizens were born overseas and half were parented by people who weren’t born here, we must expect people to use these freedoms in different ways. Lately it appears this foundational principle has become foreign to some, yet the truth is that we’ve been abiding by it in the arena of free speech for centuries. As the old saying goes, we can vehemently oppose what someone says, but in a free society must always defend — to the death if required — their right to say it.
This leaves persuasion — in the form of education, leadership, argument and example — as the main tool by which to achieve lasting social change. The NBL is setting itself up for success by emphasising the continued membership in good standing of dissenting players.
By doing its job of “loving and supporting people without judgment” — whether those people are LGBTQIA+ players or those with reservations — the organisation puts itself in the best position to advance the acceptance and inclusion agenda. Research shows the best way to change minds on prejudice is education, and increasing contact between the biased and those they are biased against.
This means that as professional sport becomes a more comfortable and welcoming environment for LGBTQIA+ people, more will be out during their sporting careers. And it will be consistent contact with those whose religion or culture has taught them to hate and to fear that will slowly dispel those prejudices, and show them the door.
