Amaechi, Hardaway and Gays in the Workplace

Former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s headline grabbing pronouncement this past week, “I hate gay people,” sent shockwaves through the professional sports community, generated personal backlash and may have ultimately cost him untold amounts of money in professional opportunities. But it didn’t surprise many people, especially not LGBTs. What is surprising is that the sports world still hasn’t faced an inevitability that other segments of society began to address years ago.

Hardaway’s candid comments during an interview with a Miami radio station were in reaction to the revelation that another former NBA player, John Amaechi is gay and had hidden that fact during his entire pro career. Amaechi came out in a book to be released this week that has sparked reaction from players, fans and sports commentators.

John Amaechi hoped by coming out he could facilitate a dialogue on the topic of gays in sports and indeed one is now beginning. Thus far, most of the mainstream media comments have come from heterosexuals (or those presumed to be). People on both sides of this issue have already addressed Hardaway’s reaction and the fact that it may be more common among athletes than people want to admit.

But not enough public comment is coming from gay people, and not enough has been done to place this subject within the broader issue of the LGBT presence in today’s workplace.

Six gay male athletes from professional baseball, football and basketball have come out, but all after retiring. A central issue of the debate is whether or not a gay athlete, in any sport, could come out during their active career. Those who believe that will never happen, fall on the argument that team cohesion would be negatively affected and straight athletes won’t feel comfortable in the same locker room. That was the gist of Hardaway’s sentiments.

Those who believe otherwise call those arguments specious. A careful look at the changes that have taken place in the rest of society since the beginning of the modern gay rights movement, suggests that fear and ignorance are the primary obstacles preventing a player from coming out and those obstacles have been overcome in many other fields.

Corporate America has been a leader in creating fairness and inclusive work environments for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. The business community faced the issue of gays and lesbians in the workplace when they began to see employees who happened to be some of their best and brightest, leave when discrimination based on sexual orientation was prevalent. They further recognized that a sizeable LGBT consumer market was closed to them because they were not willing to reach out.

Today, according to the Human Rights Campaign’s 2005-2006 “The State of the Workplace” report, a majority of Fortune 500 companies, 253 (51 percent), offer domestic partner health insurance benefits. An additional 430 (86 percent) of the organizations include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, and 81 include gender identity and/or expression, marking a tenfold increase from 2001. (A PDF of the HRC State of the Workplace 2005-2006 report can be viewed HERE.)

While more than 30 states still do not protect employees from termination simply for being gay, and no federal law exists either, the business community increasingly understands there is no upside to keeping doors of opportunity closed to gay employees. Businesses are some of the staunchest supporters of employee non-discrimination legislation. They know they risk losing good workers while also missing out on business opportunities.

The federal government is learning that lesson the hard way. In 2003, the United States Army dismissed 37 Arabic translators who were gay or lesbian, under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This was the same year the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Four years later, with the situation in Iraq an unqualified disaster, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and attacks by insurgents against U.S. and Iraqi forces increasing, our inability to decipher intelligence gathered from Arab-speaking sources has been severely compromised. Luckily, this past week, the State Department agreed to consider a suggestion from New York Congressman Gary Ackerman that they hire those dismissed Army linguists and put them to work at that agency.

While gays and lesbians can serve in every other branch of the federal government, including at the White House, the United States still does not allow them to serve openly in the military. Most of our allies do and a recent poll shows most Americans are also in favor of a change in policy.

Twenty of the 25 NATO nations allow gays in the armed forces, including Canada. Ironically in 2004, nine countries that deployed troops in Iraq allow gay service members. Those countries together contributed 60 percent of the coalition forces on the ground. Gay troops are already serving with U.S. forces, just not within U.S. forces. (A PDF report on foreign military forces that allow openly gay service members can be viewed HERE.)

Arguments that gays and straights serving together will negatively affect unit cohesion seem a bit farfetched. Just look at most local police departments. Openly gay officers are partnered right alongside their straight brothers with no loss of effectiveness. The New York City Police Department has almost 38,000 officers, the largest in the country, and openly gay officers have been an integral part for more than 20 years. Law enforcement is far more dangerous than sports and the need to be able to rely on ones partner far more critical, yet cops have managed to overcome their fears.

At the college level, there are already gay athletes who have come out. Their teammates and coaches have continued to embrace them. With a rise in the number of gay and lesbian teens coming out in high school, the possibility exists that we may someday see an openly gay athlete enter college, play his entire collegiate career and get drafted into a pro career without ever having to live in the closet.

For the sports world to catch up to the rest of society, league officials will have to demonstrate the leadership shown by corporate CEOs and government officials. It isn’t up to pro players to accept an openly gay teammate. Players don’t get to pick their teammates. It’s up to team owners. They set the policies and work rules and decide who gets a contract and who doesn’t. If they say an openly gay player can be on the team, it will happen.

By doing so, they may also attract a new and larger fan base. I can personally attest to the fact that there are legions of gay sports fans.

In 1947, when the Brooklyn Dodgers made Jackie Robinson the first Black player in Major League Baseball, some racist Dodger players presented management with a petition saying they weren’t going to play with him. Those players were traded, waived or sent to the minors. Dodger ownership made it clear change was here and they needed to get with the program or get out. Baseball was forever improved as a result.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “phobia” as “a persistent, abnormal and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.” Homophobia then, is an abnormal and irrational fear of homosexuals, despite the overwhelming awareness that there is nothing to fear.

A gay player on a pro sports team isn’t the problem. Homophobia is.