Hardaway's Comments Warrant Further Study

The NBA has banished Tim Hardaway from the All Star Weekend for his anti-gay comments made recently on the radio. With the NBA dealing with the buzz created over the announcement of John Amaechi being gay, they have decided to distance themselves from Hardaway's comments, which critics cite as the tip of the iceberg where NBA players' sentiments may truly be.

"His views are not consistent with ours," Stern said.

Sounds more like policy-making than anything else.

Critics and gay right activists assert that a larger, silent majority of NBA athletes harbor similar views about gay teammates as Tim Hardaway.

The real question then would be only starting to be asked. What is the actual sentiment of the NBA player over gay athletes?

"I don't need Tim's comments to realize there's a problem," Amaechi said. "People said that I should just shut up and go away — now they have to rethink that."

Lebron James recently stated it was about trust in the lockerroom, and not about whether or not the player is gay. It seems trust would be the codeword in question, as what difference would it make what a guy's sexual preference is in regards to trustworthiness?

Still, the real trouble here could be intolerance of views - including Tim Hardaway's stance against homosexuality.

Hardaway appropriately labeled himself as homophobic - which is simply the fear of gay people. Not the hatred of gays, even though he did say that he hated homosexuals. If that hatred was expressed, it has yet to reveal itself where Hardaway is concerned.

But why shouldn't we also hear Hardaway's point of view? Why shouldn't we follow up and examine his thoughts and why he actually thinks that way? This would enable us to get to the root cause of the problem. Maybe his basis is religious, based on interpretation of his religious doctrine? Or maybe, it is simply based on ignorance? Or perhaps, based on an identity - on the ego-driven identity that is fueled by competition and the identity of what exactly constitutes manliness?

The problem here isn't Tim Hardaway, at least whereas society is concerned. The problem is that there are members of our society that do share a similar view and interestingly, we would rather turn a deaf ear to it or just shut them up. If we are truly going to progress as a society, we have to be able to elicit discussion of opposing points of view and also entertain those opposing points of view.

To entertain a thought is simply to examine it, to shine a light on it and ask the question "why?". It doesn't mean you have to believe it.

We should be uncomfortable talking about these things. Discomfort calls for change, calls for us to pay attention but in our instantly-gratified society, we are all to comfortable with running away from tough issues, running away from anything that is real or challenging.

Here, we just want Tim Hardaway to shut up and go away. Sweep him and his views, as if he and he alone owns them, under the rug. In his apology, he said he was very sorry, deeply sorry in fact, but it seemed more in regards to the negative reaction that he has recieved and has brought upon his family. He also said he was not allowed to comment any further - by whom? And why? The damage has already been done.

Or has it? Is there more?

Our society is hypocritical. We are supposed to support the freedom of speech and the expression of thought. That doesn't mean that we have to support hatred, but we at least have to acknowledge its existence and if we are to change it, we must at least entertain the discussion in order to examine it truthfully.

Otherwise, how is real progress made?