“Nike became Nike because it was built on the idea of
rebellion,” Jemele Hill, a sports journalist wrote. “This is the same company
that dealt w/ the NBA banning Air Jordans. They made [Michael] Jordan the face
of the company at a time when black men were considered to be a huge risk as
pitch men.”[1]
Just days before the 2018-2019 NFL football season got underway, Nike threw “its
weight behind one of the most polarizing figures in football, and America:
former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.”[2]
He had been a leader in the black players’ movement to protest, by kneeling
during the national anthem, the recurring abuse of power by police. The element
of financial risk in Nike’s decision to include Kaepernick in an advertising
campaign brings up the question: should businesses take sides on political
issues—particularly, on contentious ones?
The matter of race at the time of Nike’s announcement in
2018 can be likened to a hot potato. In fact, the issue pertaining to Black
Americans was sizzling, especially in the Arizona heat. On the Labor Day
weekend, I witnessed two racial fights in Phoenix. One, on bus on the West
side, began as a young Black mother of two thought a Caucasian had used the
n-word; in fact, the man had stated that it is racist to permit Black-only use
of the word. The substance of his assertion was borne out as the woman stirred
up three Black men in the back of the bus, who because verbally abusive and
threatening to the Caucasian man. As a bystander, I felt very uncomfortable.
Even so, the driver ignored the aggressiveness and kept driving—that is, until
the Black woman accused him of being a racist for not having thrown the accused
“N-word” man off the bus. The driver pulled over and called the police, who
removed that man from the bus and yet allowed the verbally aggressive
passengers to remain. Not even the Caucasian driver had them removed, in spite
of the fact that the Black mother had shouted “You’re a racist!” at him! The
result was that the threatening and verbally abusive passengers felt
emboldened, and thus likely to pounce again.
The very next day, in fact, on the city’s light rail, a
Black man called a Hispanic man the N-word. That man objected, insisting that he
was not Black. “Don’t call me that!” he insisted. Even though he was correct,
several Black passengers pounced, as if they
were justified. To be verbally and physically aggressive is two degrees of
separation from apologizing. No
security was on that train, and the driver did not hear the noise. Fortunately,
a key person got off just before the fight would likely have gone to blows. Yet
even so, that the ganging up on the offended man could go on effectively
emboldened the activity. Hence I could predict there would be more of it. This
was something new in American society, I thought after the second incident. I
had witnessed many Black people under 40 regularly ignoring a myriad of local laws;
I wondered if that sense of entitlement was then grounding a herd-like
aggression that paid little heed to being morally justified (i.e., unlike the
civil rights movement). One effect, I surmised at the time, was that the race
would become increasingly avoided in big cities. I do not mean to suggest that
this phenomenon can or should be generalized to an entire race—that would be
racist. Yet it is entirely reasonable to instinctively avoid potentially
threatening situations. Hence I took the decision to avoid certain bus routes
in Phoenix. With so much meanness among strangers in that city, I wanted to be
able to avoid that city itself, for on top of the incivility is a police-state
that does not comprehend the concept of excessiveness,
or “over-kill”-such as in police wearing bullet-proof vests regularly patrolling
down the aisles of several Fry’s grocery stores. Just a week before the race
fights described above, I heard a report of police having beaten up an unarmed
Black man in Mesa. I suppose this could be looked at as “what goes around comes
around” stemming from the sordid lawless and aggressive/racist mentalities I
witnessed on public transportation, or as the indirect (and thus inappropriate) cause of the herd-aggression on
the bus and rail.
In the context of unresolved racial issues
centered around the Black race in America, Nike was indeed taking a financial
risk in taking sides, in effect, on the NFL players’ protest against police
brutality. The company could count on the supporters of the protests and even
the gray area wherein both the Black aggression/racism/lawlessness and the
police abuse of power are eschewed. The question was how far the “defend the
flag” supporters and Caucasian racists would go in opposing the company. Why
not stay out of controversial political issues if that means not risking any ideological group? Why not stick to
the knitting? Surely large businesses have enough to deal with in being large
organizations, and a given product or product-line always stands in need of
improvement. To divert from these tasks and go so far as to risk the loss of
part of a customer base without the approval of stockholders strikes me as an
impious, or presumptuous, managerial move.
1. Nathaniel Meyersohn, “Nike
Takes Sides, Tapping Colin Kaepernick for New ‘Just Do It’ Ad,” CNN Money,
September 4, 2018 (accessed same day).
2. Ibid.
