The NBA Dress Code has been said to be established in order to improve the image of the NBA. Incidents such as the Pacers-Pistons Brawl prompted league officials to take initiative in tidying up the leagues image. However, one must ask the question is a dress code necessarily the remedy to improve the league’s image? Instead, should the league take more steps to enforce strict punishments for those who violate league rules that taint the image of the league. A player’s dress has proven not to improve the image of the league much (Note a similar brawl between the Denver Nuggets and New York Knicks as well as the sexual harassment accusation involving then New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas).
David Stern's Time Machine!
David Stern has implemented a dress code where the chief goal is to improve the image of the NBA by returning to the days of Michael Jordan NBA Commissioner, David Stern, has implemented a dress code where the chief goal is to improve the image of the NBA. The style of dress promoted in the newly instated clothing regulations call for players to dress in styles reminiscent to the NBA days of Michael Jordan. (Above Right: Allen Iverson; Above Left Michael Jordan)
Clothes Can Speak!
The image of baggy pants, tall tee shirts, and flashy jewelry that the dress code deliberately masks, is found most prevalent in urban culture of America. Clothing serves as a means of communication. The NBA players have had the ability to communicate with their urban fans, through their clothing. However, this new dress code has the ability to stifle this communication (Above Picture: Allen Iverson style of clothing mirror urban youth).
Fashion Police: Damaging Effects of NBA Dress Code (ESSAY)
Introduction
John Milton like the great prophets Moses, Abraham and Muhammad shared an intimate connection with his community and sought to protect and better the values of his culture. Each of these individuals shared intimate connections with their communities and sought to protect and better the values of their cultures. In 1644, Milton could then see the dangers of censorship in British culture. Therefore, he published his famed prose tract, Areopagitica, which criticized the British government for its policies regarding restrictions placed on literature. Creativity. Self-expression. Freedom. These civil liberties and those similar are in danger of becoming extinct. Ranging from areas of books to clothing, censorship policies serve to suppress public thought that deviates from the norm.
What is normal conduct? Many powerful governmental institutions such as 17th century Great Britain, found it necessary to define normalcy for their communities. For example, any publications that opposed the divine rights of the kings, discussed the subject matter of witchcraft, or defied some other genre of Christian religious principles essentially, the government banned (Steffens). The government took these steps because of fears that the larger population would become corrupted. As a result, the government assumed the authority of issuing licenses to books that they felt were appropriate for the public to read. The government acted as the ultimate censor and arbitrator of ideas and thus dictated the choices of books for which the public could read.
Milton, an advocate of republican governmental principles, despised stripping individuals with their right of choice. Milton asserted that censoring literature, which went against governmental beliefs and practices, would neither increase nor decrease the number of morally good people (Milton). Instead, he believed that books, of all genres, provided avenues of higher knowledge to the gifted community. From this view, a variety of books provides diverse thought. Milton conveys the thought that destroying a book is heinous when he writes that, "As good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye" (Milton). Milton’s sentiments indicate his condemnation of the practice of licensing and limiting the number of books accessible to the public, which would become a barrier to intellectual progress. Thus, decreasing the number of books available to the public would stifle intellectual progress.
Areopagitica was an outlet for Milton to discuss his disgust of censorship. The prose tract presented four arguments as grounds for having less sanctions placed on the censorship of books: banning books is essentially evil, reading books of all kinds benefit’s the virtuous and intellectual, censoring books will not improve morals, and censoring books reduces adults to a childlike state by taking away their ability to make decisions for themselves (Milton). Milton backed his arguments with ancient teachings, primarily religious, to demonstrate the negative consequences of banning certain forms of literature. Areopagitica sparked a long-running debate concerning the negative implications afforded to a society by censorship.
Jeffrey J. Strange, co-author of Encyclopedia of Sociology , has furthered the discussion of censorship by drawing connections between the 17th century and the 21st century meanings. Strange defines the core meaning of the term as “restrictions that are consensually deemed to be illegitimate; it tends not to be applied to restrictions that are consensually deemed to be legitimate, although they fall within the descriptive scope of the term” (Strange). Institutions have rules and regulations that prohibit certain actions and behaviors; however, censorship is different. Censorship serves as a weapon that suppresses information that does not advance the agenda of those in power. In Milton’s time, censoring laws served to curb the public appetite of books by forbidding their publication. In modern times, censorship has shifted and moved into different arenas and yet has continued to serve as a method of regulating how audiences think about subjects.
Censorship is still a subject of great concern in world communities, more specifically in an American bred institution such as the National Basketball Association (NBA). On October 17, 2005, NBA Commissioner David Stern initiated a mandatory dress code for all league athletes. Similar to Milton’s day, the NBA designed the dress code to improve the image of the league as well as serving to improve the moral standards of the players. Again, this idea discriminates against certain demographics of fans in the NBA. In the fight to enhance the image of the NBA and its players, the dress code is simply not the best solution. In the words of Milton, this dilemma needs to be “freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed” (Milton).
Argumentative Essay
October 17, 2005, serves as a historic day in American popular culture. On this day, NBA commissioner David Stern reversed the hands of time and enacted a strict dress code on NBA players. This form of censorship is comparable to that present in the lifetime of John Milton. Just as Charles I so selfishly advocated the absolute power of Kings in 17th century England, Stern yielded his great fist of power as well to bring about a biased reform that aims to suppress the hip hop culture (which is also used as a great marketing tool by the NBA and its endorsers) of America. Commissioner Stern should abolish and reform the NBA dress code in a way to which it respects and tastefully projects the images of different cultures on the league and its players.
The image projected by this new, strict dress code requires that all players dress in business casual attire “whenever they are engaged in team or league business” (NBA.com). The dress code essentially means that players that attend games but not in uniform, players leaving the arena, and players at special events or appearances should be in business casual attire. Otherwise, they are in deliberate violation of NBA rules and regulations. Business casual attire, as defined by the NBA, consists of “a long or short-sleeved dress shirt or sweater, dress slacks, khaki pants, or dress jeans, and appropriate shoes, socks, including dress shoes, dress boots, or other presentable shoes, but not including sneakers, sandals, flip-flops, or work boots” (NBA.com). The apparent goal of the dress code is to combat the negative image the league has received in recent years from the actions of the players in their professional and personal lives.
Certain scandals of the NBA prompted officials to take an initiative in tidying up the league’s image. On November 19, 2004, the American public witnessed an all out brawl between the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons at The Palace of Auburn Hills in Auburn Hills, Michigan. With under a minute of official playing time left in the game, a fight broke out which began on the court between the opposing teams and escalated to a fight between players and fans in the stands after a cup of beer was thrown at then Pacer Ron Artest (Clay). The occurrences of this game led to strict punishments enforced by both the NBA and legal authorities. Former NBA player and broadcaster Bill Walton stated, “This is a low moment in NBA history...certainly no winners in this circumstance at all” (Clay). The years 2003 and 2004 surely did not focus on the NBA’s positive civic and charitable endeavors. The NBA needed a facelift.
What exactly is the best way to alter the image of the NBA and its players? Surely, the league needs to be prosperous. For instance, the NBA has created many jobs for people ranging from players to concession stand attendants at the various arenas. Also, the NBA has provided an economic stimulus for the American and other world economies through merchandising of player paraphernalia, such as tennis shoes, jerseys, and video games. David Stern saw the importance of the image of the league and its players. Just like 17th century Parliament and Charles I, Stern had a solution as well. His solution to improve the current image of the NBA, rested in what the players wore. The answer was then simple, right? If the players dressed in business casual attire, they would conduct themselves more appropriately. Accordingly, the image of the league would improve as well. Wrong.
History has proven to us that censorship policies do not always improve the image of a society. For example, in Milton’s lifetime, regulating the distribution of presumed “unmoral” books did not prevent theft, rape, and murder. Areopagitica argued that banning or censoring specific books would not directly improve the morals of the English society. His argument parallels the dress code of the NBA. Simply because you dress a person in a suit and tie does not mean he will not engage in physical altercations. Moreover, altering the dress code of NBA players will not improve their conduct as well as the image of the NBA.
Players and fans alike expressed mixed emotions concerning the new dress code. Some people supported Stern in his decision to have players conform to the new regulations. Many people advocated that many professions had dress codes for their employees, so the demands of the NBA were common. USA Today published an article in which the newspaper asked for reader feedback. James Runyon of Belfry, Kentucky commented in favor of the dress code by stating, “Anything, and I do mean anything, that has any type of influence on children is important. If a local mayor shows up at a high school function in jeans and a rolled up T-shirt, does it matter?...Of course it does” (Dupree). In addition, the National Hockey League required its players to wear a jacket and tie to games. Therefore, the dress code reform was standard protocol for other sports programs as well.
Supporters rallied behind Stern with similar ideologies. Some supporters even took great leaps to suggest that the dress code would improve the NBA’s image so much among middle class fans and corporate sponsors that the league would produce more revenue. As a direct result of increased revenue, there would be an increase in player and staff salaries as well (Clay). Then, the image of the NBA and actions of its players on and off the court rested solely on attire. The solution is not only a misguided decision but it hinders the ability of NBA athletes to communicate through clothing with a certain fan base.
The newly installed dress code directly affected many players, one namely being Allen Iverson. The dress code made Iverson’s style of jeans, hats, and jewelry in direct violation. Many critics felt that this standard singled out specific players and was unfair. In that same article published by USA Today, Chris Sommers expressed his contempt for the dress code. He stated, “The dress code will have a very minimal effect on the image of the NBA because any fan who pays enough attention to what the players are wearing on the bench already know the negative and bad sides of the players” (Dupree). Sommers expresses the same sentiments as Milton. If one bans specific books, people will not magically become better people; the same goes for the NBA dress code.
The dress code even affected fans abroad. In the same article, international NBA fan of Paris, France, Pat Pembi expressed his lack of faith of the improvement of the NBA’s image by a simple dress code. “The same is true of Allen Iverson. Those who think he's a thug won't change their mind just by seeing him wearing a tux and those who like him don't care at all about his clothes” (Dupree). The opinions of fans were valid. Solving the problems of the NBA involved more than simply dressing its players up in business casual attire.
Of course, the demand of having the players wear business casual attire is not outrageous. As mentioned earlier, the NHL had a similar sanction on its players, and other professions required the same of its workers. However, the NBA is a special case. The suppression of hip-hop culture is made apparent. By suppressing this culture, the NBA is not projecting the diverse culture of the leagues fans on the players. Although a dress code might necessarily appeal to middle class audiences, especially white audiences, the suppression of certain styles of dress can negatively affect the ability of basketball stars to communicate non-verbally (through their clothing) with significant demographics of black fans. The image of baggy pants, tall tee shirts, and flashy jewelry that the dress code deliberately masks, is found most prevalent in urban culture of America. Moreover, the NBA capitalizes on this same culture in promoting the league, its players, and its products and its production of revenue.
The NBA uses hip-hop music to capture the attention of its fans. For example, the NBA all-star weekend capitalizes on the use of hip-hip music when promoting the weekend, which consists of contests, events, and performances related to basketball. In the 2007 celebrity all-star game, rappers Nelly, Bow Wow, and Nick Cannon participated in the game. Also, team arenas use songs such as Nelly’s “Hot in Herre” and Soulja Boy’s “Soulja Boy” during timeouts and game play to create an exciting atmosphere. In addition, famed rappers have even taken ownership roles in teams one example of such being Jay-Z having ownership in the New Jersey Nets (NBA.com). Moreover, hip-hop songs are used to enhance the advertisement of shoes. For example, Nike used a song by rapper Juelz Santana to promote its new line of Air Force 25 shoes (Dupree). The rap music has the ability to communicate with different demographics of basketball fans.
Suppose the dress code did indeed improve the image of those associated with the NBA. Naturally, behavior would improve, right? Wrong. For example, on December 16, 2006, there was yet another huge brawl between NBA teams. This time the New York Knicks and the Denver Nuggets engaged in a physical altercation. Famed player Carmello Anthony received a 15 game suspension because of the fight (Clay).These incidents prove that the dress code cannot prevent reprehensible behavior. However, one can begin to see the negative implications the dress code has on the viewing audience.
League officials placing sanctions on athletes who earn annual multi-million dollar salaries conveys the wrong message to the larger public. These athletes are trusted to endorse various products such as shoes, cars, and food. So why can they not dress themselves accordingly? People typically respond better to those who are similar to them physically and speak in the same manner as they. The dress code serves to stifle this communication between players and fans. The NBA is filled with diversity. Therefore, the NBA should not only court a middle-class, conservative demographics of fans.
Charles I and David Stern both used censorship policies as a means to improve the image of their institutions. The idea should then be more apparent that restricting books from England’s people as well as restricting the dress of NBA players would not improve the images significantly. The words of Milton strengthen the censorship argument when he states in Areopagitica that “there is no reason that we should deprive a wise man of any advantage to his wisdom, while we seek to restrain from a fool that which being restrained will be no hindrance to his folly” (Milton). Stern should abolish regulations on dress and find other methods to improve the image of NBA players. Strict punishments should be in place for those who commit actions that tarnish the image of the NBA instead of suppressing the hip-hop culture that continues to generate much revenue for the league. Players must take personal responsibility for their actions. Placing restrictions on free expression of ideas has, unfortunately, a long history, a history that has often times been unkind to those with less power. Stern’s dress code seems to extend a tradition of imposing a limited system of beliefs on a large group.
Plan for Distribution
The NBA dress code dilemma does not serve as a adequate remedy to enhance the image of the NBA. However, the majority of the public has not had the time consider the negative implications this dress code would have on them. For instance, this new dress code caters to the likes and dislikes of middle-class Americans, when in reality the fan base of the NBA is far more diverse. The public should be educated on these negative implications.
Just as John Milton used the new technology of his era to educate the masses on the dangers of censorship, I will also use modern technology to disseminate information.
The internet is an excellent resource used for delivering information to a wide variety of people. In this day in age, the internet would be my best option to communicate with my professor, classmates, and others across the globe. Outside of the relationships I have developed at Morehouse, anybody interested in the subject would be able to access the information. Blogs are a trendy invention. Blogs such as the Daily Kos dominate the internet when publishing political news from a liberal point of view. I will imitate this site in order to cultivate an audience interested in the subject of censorship, more specifically the NBA dress code.
In addition to creating a blog site, I will also construct a handout solely for the use of class discussion. Engaging literature which discusses key facts of the dress code is eminent for my classmates to fully comprehend the subject. Therefore, during my presentation I will distribute handouts to my classmates and professor since they would not be able to access my blog site in our classroom. This will enhance my ability to effectively expose the negative consequences of the dress code as well as argue for the abolishment of the dress code.
Not only do the clothing styles of select NBA players coincide with the hip-hop culture that has generated much revenue for the league through shoes, video games, and food, but it also establishes credibility between players and urban fans. The larger public, the urban public specifically, usually responds better to people who resemble them in appearance. In addition to the blog site and handout, I will include pictures. The pictures will demonstrate the image the NBA is trying to create. That image will be contrasted with images of Allen Iverson, Ron Artest, and other players who subscribe to this hip-hop culture. The images will help to provide a visual to explain the importance of non-verbal communication (communication through clothing).
Milton took advantage of the technology during his lifetime. Before the printing press, people solely depended on the delivery of a speech as a means to reason and take a stance on certain issues. The printing press allowed for him to distribute a speech, Areopagitica, which people were able to engage in a more intimate manner. I too, will take advantage of technology and use a blog site, handout, and pictures to enhance my argument. Being able to access my pamphlet in its entirety on the internet, having a hard copy summarizing the key points, and having a visual aid will assist me in shedding light on the problems of the NBA dress code.
John Milton like the great prophets Moses, Abraham and Muhammad shared an intimate connection with his community and sought to protect and better the values of his culture. Each of these individuals shared intimate connections with their communities and sought to protect and better the values of their cultures. In 1644, Milton could then see the dangers of censorship in British culture. Therefore, he published his famed prose tract, Areopagitica, which criticized the British government for its policies regarding restrictions placed on literature. Creativity. Self-expression. Freedom. These civil liberties and those similar are in danger of becoming extinct. Ranging from areas of books to clothing, censorship policies serve to suppress public thought that deviates from the norm.
What is normal conduct? Many powerful governmental institutions such as 17th century Great Britain, found it necessary to define normalcy for their communities. For example, any publications that opposed the divine rights of the kings, discussed the subject matter of witchcraft, or defied some other genre of Christian religious principles essentially, the government banned (Steffens). The government took these steps because of fears that the larger population would become corrupted. As a result, the government assumed the authority of issuing licenses to books that they felt were appropriate for the public to read. The government acted as the ultimate censor and arbitrator of ideas and thus dictated the choices of books for which the public could read.
Milton, an advocate of republican governmental principles, despised stripping individuals with their right of choice. Milton asserted that censoring literature, which went against governmental beliefs and practices, would neither increase nor decrease the number of morally good people (Milton). Instead, he believed that books, of all genres, provided avenues of higher knowledge to the gifted community. From this view, a variety of books provides diverse thought. Milton conveys the thought that destroying a book is heinous when he writes that, "As good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye" (Milton). Milton’s sentiments indicate his condemnation of the practice of licensing and limiting the number of books accessible to the public, which would become a barrier to intellectual progress. Thus, decreasing the number of books available to the public would stifle intellectual progress.
Areopagitica was an outlet for Milton to discuss his disgust of censorship. The prose tract presented four arguments as grounds for having less sanctions placed on the censorship of books: banning books is essentially evil, reading books of all kinds benefit’s the virtuous and intellectual, censoring books will not improve morals, and censoring books reduces adults to a childlike state by taking away their ability to make decisions for themselves (Milton). Milton backed his arguments with ancient teachings, primarily religious, to demonstrate the negative consequences of banning certain forms of literature. Areopagitica sparked a long-running debate concerning the negative implications afforded to a society by censorship.
Jeffrey J. Strange, co-author of Encyclopedia of Sociology , has furthered the discussion of censorship by drawing connections between the 17th century and the 21st century meanings. Strange defines the core meaning of the term as “restrictions that are consensually deemed to be illegitimate; it tends not to be applied to restrictions that are consensually deemed to be legitimate, although they fall within the descriptive scope of the term” (Strange). Institutions have rules and regulations that prohibit certain actions and behaviors; however, censorship is different. Censorship serves as a weapon that suppresses information that does not advance the agenda of those in power. In Milton’s time, censoring laws served to curb the public appetite of books by forbidding their publication. In modern times, censorship has shifted and moved into different arenas and yet has continued to serve as a method of regulating how audiences think about subjects.
Censorship is still a subject of great concern in world communities, more specifically in an American bred institution such as the National Basketball Association (NBA). On October 17, 2005, NBA Commissioner David Stern initiated a mandatory dress code for all league athletes. Similar to Milton’s day, the NBA designed the dress code to improve the image of the league as well as serving to improve the moral standards of the players. Again, this idea discriminates against certain demographics of fans in the NBA. In the fight to enhance the image of the NBA and its players, the dress code is simply not the best solution. In the words of Milton, this dilemma needs to be “freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed” (Milton).
Argumentative Essay
October 17, 2005, serves as a historic day in American popular culture. On this day, NBA commissioner David Stern reversed the hands of time and enacted a strict dress code on NBA players. This form of censorship is comparable to that present in the lifetime of John Milton. Just as Charles I so selfishly advocated the absolute power of Kings in 17th century England, Stern yielded his great fist of power as well to bring about a biased reform that aims to suppress the hip hop culture (which is also used as a great marketing tool by the NBA and its endorsers) of America. Commissioner Stern should abolish and reform the NBA dress code in a way to which it respects and tastefully projects the images of different cultures on the league and its players.
The image projected by this new, strict dress code requires that all players dress in business casual attire “whenever they are engaged in team or league business” (NBA.com). The dress code essentially means that players that attend games but not in uniform, players leaving the arena, and players at special events or appearances should be in business casual attire. Otherwise, they are in deliberate violation of NBA rules and regulations. Business casual attire, as defined by the NBA, consists of “a long or short-sleeved dress shirt or sweater, dress slacks, khaki pants, or dress jeans, and appropriate shoes, socks, including dress shoes, dress boots, or other presentable shoes, but not including sneakers, sandals, flip-flops, or work boots” (NBA.com). The apparent goal of the dress code is to combat the negative image the league has received in recent years from the actions of the players in their professional and personal lives.
Certain scandals of the NBA prompted officials to take an initiative in tidying up the league’s image. On November 19, 2004, the American public witnessed an all out brawl between the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons at The Palace of Auburn Hills in Auburn Hills, Michigan. With under a minute of official playing time left in the game, a fight broke out which began on the court between the opposing teams and escalated to a fight between players and fans in the stands after a cup of beer was thrown at then Pacer Ron Artest (Clay). The occurrences of this game led to strict punishments enforced by both the NBA and legal authorities. Former NBA player and broadcaster Bill Walton stated, “This is a low moment in NBA history...certainly no winners in this circumstance at all” (Clay). The years 2003 and 2004 surely did not focus on the NBA’s positive civic and charitable endeavors. The NBA needed a facelift.
What exactly is the best way to alter the image of the NBA and its players? Surely, the league needs to be prosperous. For instance, the NBA has created many jobs for people ranging from players to concession stand attendants at the various arenas. Also, the NBA has provided an economic stimulus for the American and other world economies through merchandising of player paraphernalia, such as tennis shoes, jerseys, and video games. David Stern saw the importance of the image of the league and its players. Just like 17th century Parliament and Charles I, Stern had a solution as well. His solution to improve the current image of the NBA, rested in what the players wore. The answer was then simple, right? If the players dressed in business casual attire, they would conduct themselves more appropriately. Accordingly, the image of the league would improve as well. Wrong.
History has proven to us that censorship policies do not always improve the image of a society. For example, in Milton’s lifetime, regulating the distribution of presumed “unmoral” books did not prevent theft, rape, and murder. Areopagitica argued that banning or censoring specific books would not directly improve the morals of the English society. His argument parallels the dress code of the NBA. Simply because you dress a person in a suit and tie does not mean he will not engage in physical altercations. Moreover, altering the dress code of NBA players will not improve their conduct as well as the image of the NBA.
Players and fans alike expressed mixed emotions concerning the new dress code. Some people supported Stern in his decision to have players conform to the new regulations. Many people advocated that many professions had dress codes for their employees, so the demands of the NBA were common. USA Today published an article in which the newspaper asked for reader feedback. James Runyon of Belfry, Kentucky commented in favor of the dress code by stating, “Anything, and I do mean anything, that has any type of influence on children is important. If a local mayor shows up at a high school function in jeans and a rolled up T-shirt, does it matter?...Of course it does” (Dupree). In addition, the National Hockey League required its players to wear a jacket and tie to games. Therefore, the dress code reform was standard protocol for other sports programs as well.
Supporters rallied behind Stern with similar ideologies. Some supporters even took great leaps to suggest that the dress code would improve the NBA’s image so much among middle class fans and corporate sponsors that the league would produce more revenue. As a direct result of increased revenue, there would be an increase in player and staff salaries as well (Clay). Then, the image of the NBA and actions of its players on and off the court rested solely on attire. The solution is not only a misguided decision but it hinders the ability of NBA athletes to communicate through clothing with a certain fan base.
The newly installed dress code directly affected many players, one namely being Allen Iverson. The dress code made Iverson’s style of jeans, hats, and jewelry in direct violation. Many critics felt that this standard singled out specific players and was unfair. In that same article published by USA Today, Chris Sommers expressed his contempt for the dress code. He stated, “The dress code will have a very minimal effect on the image of the NBA because any fan who pays enough attention to what the players are wearing on the bench already know the negative and bad sides of the players” (Dupree). Sommers expresses the same sentiments as Milton. If one bans specific books, people will not magically become better people; the same goes for the NBA dress code.
The dress code even affected fans abroad. In the same article, international NBA fan of Paris, France, Pat Pembi expressed his lack of faith of the improvement of the NBA’s image by a simple dress code. “The same is true of Allen Iverson. Those who think he's a thug won't change their mind just by seeing him wearing a tux and those who like him don't care at all about his clothes” (Dupree). The opinions of fans were valid. Solving the problems of the NBA involved more than simply dressing its players up in business casual attire.
Of course, the demand of having the players wear business casual attire is not outrageous. As mentioned earlier, the NHL had a similar sanction on its players, and other professions required the same of its workers. However, the NBA is a special case. The suppression of hip-hop culture is made apparent. By suppressing this culture, the NBA is not projecting the diverse culture of the leagues fans on the players. Although a dress code might necessarily appeal to middle class audiences, especially white audiences, the suppression of certain styles of dress can negatively affect the ability of basketball stars to communicate non-verbally (through their clothing) with significant demographics of black fans. The image of baggy pants, tall tee shirts, and flashy jewelry that the dress code deliberately masks, is found most prevalent in urban culture of America. Moreover, the NBA capitalizes on this same culture in promoting the league, its players, and its products and its production of revenue.
The NBA uses hip-hop music to capture the attention of its fans. For example, the NBA all-star weekend capitalizes on the use of hip-hip music when promoting the weekend, which consists of contests, events, and performances related to basketball. In the 2007 celebrity all-star game, rappers Nelly, Bow Wow, and Nick Cannon participated in the game. Also, team arenas use songs such as Nelly’s “Hot in Herre” and Soulja Boy’s “Soulja Boy” during timeouts and game play to create an exciting atmosphere. In addition, famed rappers have even taken ownership roles in teams one example of such being Jay-Z having ownership in the New Jersey Nets (NBA.com). Moreover, hip-hop songs are used to enhance the advertisement of shoes. For example, Nike used a song by rapper Juelz Santana to promote its new line of Air Force 25 shoes (Dupree). The rap music has the ability to communicate with different demographics of basketball fans.
Suppose the dress code did indeed improve the image of those associated with the NBA. Naturally, behavior would improve, right? Wrong. For example, on December 16, 2006, there was yet another huge brawl between NBA teams. This time the New York Knicks and the Denver Nuggets engaged in a physical altercation. Famed player Carmello Anthony received a 15 game suspension because of the fight (Clay).These incidents prove that the dress code cannot prevent reprehensible behavior. However, one can begin to see the negative implications the dress code has on the viewing audience.
League officials placing sanctions on athletes who earn annual multi-million dollar salaries conveys the wrong message to the larger public. These athletes are trusted to endorse various products such as shoes, cars, and food. So why can they not dress themselves accordingly? People typically respond better to those who are similar to them physically and speak in the same manner as they. The dress code serves to stifle this communication between players and fans. The NBA is filled with diversity. Therefore, the NBA should not only court a middle-class, conservative demographics of fans.
Charles I and David Stern both used censorship policies as a means to improve the image of their institutions. The idea should then be more apparent that restricting books from England’s people as well as restricting the dress of NBA players would not improve the images significantly. The words of Milton strengthen the censorship argument when he states in Areopagitica that “there is no reason that we should deprive a wise man of any advantage to his wisdom, while we seek to restrain from a fool that which being restrained will be no hindrance to his folly” (Milton). Stern should abolish regulations on dress and find other methods to improve the image of NBA players. Strict punishments should be in place for those who commit actions that tarnish the image of the NBA instead of suppressing the hip-hop culture that continues to generate much revenue for the league. Players must take personal responsibility for their actions. Placing restrictions on free expression of ideas has, unfortunately, a long history, a history that has often times been unkind to those with less power. Stern’s dress code seems to extend a tradition of imposing a limited system of beliefs on a large group.
Plan for Distribution
The NBA dress code dilemma does not serve as a adequate remedy to enhance the image of the NBA. However, the majority of the public has not had the time consider the negative implications this dress code would have on them. For instance, this new dress code caters to the likes and dislikes of middle-class Americans, when in reality the fan base of the NBA is far more diverse. The public should be educated on these negative implications.
Just as John Milton used the new technology of his era to educate the masses on the dangers of censorship, I will also use modern technology to disseminate information.
The internet is an excellent resource used for delivering information to a wide variety of people. In this day in age, the internet would be my best option to communicate with my professor, classmates, and others across the globe. Outside of the relationships I have developed at Morehouse, anybody interested in the subject would be able to access the information. Blogs are a trendy invention. Blogs such as the Daily Kos dominate the internet when publishing political news from a liberal point of view. I will imitate this site in order to cultivate an audience interested in the subject of censorship, more specifically the NBA dress code.
In addition to creating a blog site, I will also construct a handout solely for the use of class discussion. Engaging literature which discusses key facts of the dress code is eminent for my classmates to fully comprehend the subject. Therefore, during my presentation I will distribute handouts to my classmates and professor since they would not be able to access my blog site in our classroom. This will enhance my ability to effectively expose the negative consequences of the dress code as well as argue for the abolishment of the dress code.
Not only do the clothing styles of select NBA players coincide with the hip-hop culture that has generated much revenue for the league through shoes, video games, and food, but it also establishes credibility between players and urban fans. The larger public, the urban public specifically, usually responds better to people who resemble them in appearance. In addition to the blog site and handout, I will include pictures. The pictures will demonstrate the image the NBA is trying to create. That image will be contrasted with images of Allen Iverson, Ron Artest, and other players who subscribe to this hip-hop culture. The images will help to provide a visual to explain the importance of non-verbal communication (communication through clothing).
Milton took advantage of the technology during his lifetime. Before the printing press, people solely depended on the delivery of a speech as a means to reason and take a stance on certain issues. The printing press allowed for him to distribute a speech, Areopagitica, which people were able to engage in a more intimate manner. I too, will take advantage of technology and use a blog site, handout, and pictures to enhance my argument. Being able to access my pamphlet in its entirety on the internet, having a hard copy summarizing the key points, and having a visual aid will assist me in shedding light on the problems of the NBA dress code.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Introducing Nike's Air Force 25
This video advertising Nike’s “Air Force 25’s” blends hip hop with the NBA. This video is evidence that the league utilizes sentiments of hip-hop culture to appeal to an urban audience and encourage them to purchase tennis shoes. The NBA also uses other forms of advertising geared toward urban audiences to encourage the purchasing of other NBA merchandise.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
