Utah’s Relationship with Moral Licensing and Donovan Mitchell
In early January 2008, Iowa Democrats unknowingly created a modern mythos by selecting Barack Obama as presidential nominee. Their decision to support a Black politician amid White candidates reverberated across America, leading Obama to claim victories in predominantly White, working-class communities. As Obama’s “Yes We Can” rhetoric resonated in American ears, he became a cultural icon with mass appeal across race and ethnicity. The wide support and eventual election of President Obama caused many national pundits to believe that America was entering a post-racial era — proof of progress in a country fraught by racism.
Modern readers will easily identify the fallacy of these statements as 2020 America has again exposed its persistent racism through the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Elijah McClain, and hundreds of Black lives during the “post-racial era.” Although the perpetuation of racism cannot be reduced to a single moment, the reaction immediately following Obama’s election may help us understand a fatal flaw in the Jazz Basketball community’s treatment of Donovan Mitchell, as well as ways to work toward a true post-racial era.
In November 2008, Daniel Effron, Jessica Cameron and Benoît Monin, researcher from Stanford University, conducted experiments to determine if endorsing Barack Obama made individuals more likely to favor White people over Black people. To test their hypothesis, researchers interviewed undergraduate students from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. In order to establish control conditions, researchers asked students to identify whom they would support between Barack Obama and John McCain. Next, to identify if support of a Black candidate influences their subsequent behaviors, researchers asked participants a series of questions regarding employment, hiring practices, and government spending.
Based on data collected from each interview, researchers found that those who endorsed Obama were also more likely to endorse practices that favored White people over Black people. Researchers hypothesize that “expressing support for an African–American candidate licenses people to favor Whites at the expense of Blacks.” According to the researchers, “these findings suggest that endorsing Obama may not change attitudes, but rather establishes moral credentials and increases comfort expressing preferences that favor Whites.” To better understand the relevance of their research, we must dig into the idea of licensing and credentials.
Moral credentials and moral licensing are terms used by social psychologists to describe a cognitive bias expressed after an individual makes an unprejudiced decision. According to the Stanford researchers “establishing oneself psychologically as unprejudiced may make people feel more comfortable expressing views that could be interpreted as prejudiced. Contemporary Americans are normally careful not to express such views for fear of experiencing disapproval or guilt, unless their past behavior establishes their moral credentials as unbiased individuals.” In essence, people are more willing to express prejudice through word or action if they feel that they have gained the right to do so because of previous unprejudiced expressions.
Unfortunately, Utahns do not have to look far or wide for examples of moral licensing within the Beehive state. In the weeks following the murder of George Floyd, hundreds of Utahns gathered across the state in protest of police brutality and oppressive systems that exist in our community. With paint splattered on government facades and voices raw from chanting “I can’t breathe,” social activism swept through our predominantly White, conservative state with surprising intensity. While taking inventory of the nation’s reaction of yet another murder of a Black man, many national figures, including filmmaker Spike Lee, measured the outrage by who was participating in protests. Expressed with the tone of his New York borough, Spike Lee said “My young white sisters and brothers are out there in the streets. How many black folks are in Salt Lake City, Utah? And let’s take into account that the NBA is not playing. The Utah Jazz are not playing!” For Lee, White engagement indicated the severity of the crime and the seriousness of the moment. Simultaneously incredulous and encouraged, Lee saw what many Utahns were feeling: Silence is complacency; therefore, White people have to do more. But would the consequence of doing more lead to more or less prejudice? The researchers at Stanford would say more prejudice would occur.
Suddenly, Instagram stories were populated with data on police brutality and incarceration from many, including myself, who previously had been minimally engaged in antiracism. Black squares overwhelmed feeds. Protests continued. It seemed like Utahns were entering a new chapter of inclusivity; however, let’s not forget what we learned from Obama’s election — people are more willing to express prejudice through word or action if they feel that they have gained the right to do so because of previous unprejudiced expressions. Moral licensing. Queue Utah’s relationship with moral licensing and Donovan Mitchell.
Since being drafted in 2017, Donovan’s influence in Utah is impossible to miss, even for those who pay little attention to sports. Gregarious and charming, Donovan demands the spotlight, not because he is an egotist, but because he seems authentically good. He stops for fender benders, pays for broken iPhones, invites bullied students to sit court-side, and gifts shoes to fans. As if being a good Samaritan was not enough, Donovan endears himself to Utah by incorporating himself in the community. He attends high school and college sporting events, shows up to Fourth of July parties, and, most importantly, defends the community against stereotypes that have negatively impacted Utah’s ability to draw free agents. For too long, Jazz fans have felt like the little brother. The weird uncle. The pathetic friend. But when Donovan came to town, everything changed. Now, outsider opinions mean less because Donovan sees us for who we are. He supports us, and we have supported Donovan with a passion only single sport markets are capable of doing. But when Donovan needed us most, we cashed in our moral credentials.
In a recent article posted by The Player’s Tribune, Donovan shared his perspective on the events leading to the NBA shut down, as well as his subsequent quarantine. For Mitchell, being in quarantine was a lonely, yet transformative period. Mitchell says, “that time allowed me to really take a hard look at my life. It allowed me to think about who I want to be. Not as an NBA player, but as a human being. And a big part of that for me is to be honest about how I feel about what’s going on in this country, no matter how certain people may feel about it.” Entering quarantine a gregarious, charming basketball star, Mitchell exited quarantine an unapologetic activist exuding thoughtfulness and grace. On social media and during interviews from within the Bubble, Donovan has been a harsh critic of Louisville’s response to the murder of Breonna Taylor and Daniel Cameron’s reluctance to arrest her murderers. And, as he expected, certain people have many feelings about it. Unfortunately, those “certain people” are his people. Those “certain people” are us.
For some Jazz fans, Donovan’s transformation is unwelcome. This stick-to-sports crowd sees Donovan’s activism as threatening to the homeostasis of their fandom. Many threaten to abandon the team completely, hoping the thought of losing their illegally streamed viewership will convince him to stop. They desperately want to separate the art from the artist in order to preserve their world. After all, these people use sports as an escape. Didn’t you know? How can they escape their trials if he is always talking about his? These people feel justified to comment “All Lives Matter” on his posts because they were there for him when he went off on the Pelicans during his rookie season. They feel entitled to suggest he “stick to sports” because they yell “blouses” after every signature dunk. They want Donovan to be singular, so they can be dynamic. They are up to their Five for the Fight patches in moral credentials.
I understand that the vocal minority of fans is not entirely representative of the large community who supports Donovan without caveat or ambition to earn credentials. But understanding moral licensing’s relationship with Donovan Mitchell was never meant for the minority. The minority would never read columns about their own shortcomings because they believe their moral credentials preclude them from falling short. Moral licensing is meant for the silent majority. It is a reminder to the majority that if we jumped to our feet when Donovan dropped Tatum during Summer League, we must also jump to our feet in support of diverse communities. It is a health and wellness check of our ethics to ensure we are celebrating the promotion of equality with as much fervor as late game heroics against OKC. It is a warning that our shouts during the playoffs do not qualify us to remain silent when Black lives are being taken. Let’s retain the knowledge of moral licensing to curb the tendency to do wrong after we have done right. Let’s cheer for Donovan as he faces the Nuggets, but, more importantly, join him by shouting: Justice for Breonna Taylor.
