The Bigger Issue Behind ESPN, Rachel Nichols, & Diversity: The Zero-Sum Game Diverse Talent Ends Up Playing (& what companies can learn from this)

This story has bugged me since the initial July frenzy and even more so now that ESPN has cancelled The Jump, the show that Rachel Nichols started and hosted.

Why hasn't there been more outrage and commentary about ESPN's failings as an employer and their mismanagement of the private conversation that was leaked between Rachel and Adam Mendelsohn about her 2020 NBA Finals assignment being given to Maria Taylor? They had a whole year to handle it and are only taking such public steps now because of media pressure. In this whole saga, ESPN has far more culpability given its lack of leadership and the toxic work environment it created.

There can be endless debates about what Rachel deserves for what she said (longer excerpt below). And Maria's an innocent bystander who's caught in the crosshairs of this mess. But there's not enough discussion about the responsibility ESPN has for the work environment it created and how it treats its people while our cancel culture distracts us and gives ESPN a scapegoat to hide behind.

Nichols: So they said to me ‘Hey instead of hosting the NBA Finals, how about you do Doris [Burke, ESPN commentator]’s sideline reporter job for the NBA Finals?’ [pause] ‘Cause guess what that would clear the way for

Mendelsohn: For her to do it full time.

Nichols: For Maria to do the hosting full time.

Mendelsohn: Yeah.

Nichols: So I have declined. I don’t know what their next move is, but they are feeling pressure because of…all of that, and I’m trying to figure out, like how to just…you know, my thing is, I wish Maria Taylor all the success in the world — she covers football, she covers basketball. If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity — which, by the way, I know personally from the female side of it — like, go for it. Just find it somewhere else. You are not going to find it from me or taking my thing away.

(a few minutes later)

Nichols: I just want them to go somewhere else — it's in my contract, by the way; this job is in my contract in writing.

(a few minutes later)

Nichols: Those same people — who are, like, generally white conservative male Trump voters — is part of the reason I’ve had a hard time at ESPN. I basically finally just outworked everyone for so long that they had to recognize it. I don’t want to then be a victim of them trying to play catch-up for the same damage that affected me in the first place, you know what I mean. So I’m trying to just be nice.        

A Pause For Background...

ESPN has an extensive history of being silencers on race issues when they're unpopular (e.g. suspending Jemele Hill for her tweets re: Trump), reactionary when it is (e.g. Maria Taylor and other Black talent being given more leeway and air time to talk about racial inequities and BLM this past year), and wildly inconsistent in between (e.g. NOT disciplining Stephen A. Smith for racist comments ON AIR just last month). They clearly have not figured out a strategy for handling race in their coverage or for sustainable DEI practices in how they run the business, make decisions, and communicate with their employees. It's pervasive, their people know it, and it's no surprise Rachel called it out.

Cancelling Rachel Nichols' show (and her) is not going to change the discrimination, systemic biases, lack of diversity in leadership, and unequal opportunities at ESPN. Not to mention their lack of integrity in taking a contractually promised assignment away from one of their longest tenured employees and giving it to someone else. Add in the fact that these two people are both women, and it begs the question... did they ask a man to give up his hard earned position so Maria could have his spot?

And is consistent action taken across the board? What was Stephen A. Smith's discipline for criticizing Shohei Ohtani on-air for being the biggest star in baseball and needing an interpreter (when some of the biggest MLB stars have needed the same in the past) and then doubling down? What was announcer Dave LaMont's discipline for complaining on a 200 person call while Black employees were sharing personal discrimination experiences (and forgetting to mute himself), that the call was just a venting session for Black employees?

Our Cancel Culture Doesn't Care About Nuance Or Context

Rachel's choice of words and lack of allyship in a private conversation aside, I have empathy for a woman defending a seat that took her almost two decades to get. (I don't say earn because other men got comparable seats in far less time and she earned it a long time ago.) Let's not forget we're talking about the sports industry, where sexism reigns. Plus, sportscasting is like Game of Thrones regardless of gender. Add in being a woman and it's a bloodbath. It's not the only way to get your seat, but it's the dominant, tried and true path.

In this case, it's too easy to demonize Rachel and not dig into the nuance. She didn't say Maria is untalented and getting assignments because of race in general. Maria is such an undeniable talent, no part of me believes that Rachel thinks otherwise, especially given the context. But in a situation where Rachel's contractual assignment might be taken away and given to someone who already has many good assignments, she speculated in private to a confidant that it could be race related.

Which raises a less-discussed facet of DEI work... People may support diversity efforts, but no one wants to give up their seat. I've heard similar, and worse, commentary from people who feel like DEI efforts will take something away from them. So, if you're an employer or manager, how will you lead and proactively address this if more seats aren't being created?

If ESPN felt Maria was the better talent for the job then say that, explain why, and communicate how you're going to handle the fact that you promised an employee a job in writing and are now taking it away. But offering Rachel a smaller role and asking if she'll self select for that path is disingenuous and manipulative.

DEI Has To Address The Systemic Problems, Not Just The Symptoms

The far greater issue is the macro gender and diversity equity problem at ESPN. I spent most of my career in sports (3 years at ESPN) and being a woman was such a burden (dealing with gender discrimination and unwanted sexual attention which impacted how I did my job) that I didn't have time to consider how race also affected me until my 30s.

You fight for scraps and unconsciously view other women as your competition because there are so many distinct barriers to entering the boys' club. Not to mention, they often just didn't want you there.

You have to be self-aware and check yourself regularly so you don't become a woman who is shit to other women. But it's tough to navigate advocating for yourself when there are so few seats. Or defending yourself when something you earned is taken away.

I ran into Rachel in the bathroom once when I worked at ESPN and tried to speak with her. I was nervous and she wasn't interested. My first thought was that she was cold. But then I considered how hard it must be to be in the small % of woman sportscasters and what she's had to do or how she's had to be in order to rise. Sure, she could've been nicer, but when defense is a survival tactic it can become instinct over time.

Many women adopt more masculine postures as they advance in their career (not required, but it can help or happen unintentionally), but the flip side is that you come off as too aggressive, straightforward, difficult, or manly.

I once had a review that centered squarely on my tone and how I needed to be softer and less direct with barely a mention of how I gave the better part of my life the year prior, including weekends, to successfully stand up a new relationship that was deemed the most important in our office. I don't automatically discount tone feedback, but when a manager barely reviews my work product, justifies a 3% raise due to my tone, and doesn't dish the feedback equally while peers, who openly curse out, dress down, and make ignorant and discriminatory remarks to their direct reports move ahead... I took massive issue, provided a counterargument with supporting evidence, and brought in HR. I was told it was "too late" to get a raise, but was given extra vacation days. 🙄

Specifically at ESPN, one review ended with my boss summing up that I just had to do as I was told and to stop challenging authority with all my questions.

ESPN also has a terrible track record of protecting (see: Mike Tirico's sexual harassment and stalking; whose career has flourished since), investing in and elevating women (see: Amina Hussein not being promoted for a decade+), as well as silencing voices that don't fall in line (see: Jemele Hill from above and Bill Simmons). ESPN: The Uncensored History details the blatant sexual harassment and racial discrimination that happened across the decades.

Adrienne Lawrence, a lawyer and ex-legal analyst for ESPN and the first on-air personality to sue them for sexual harassment, wrote a whole book about how to deal with workplace sexual harassment based on her experiences (Staying in the Game: The Playbook for Beating Workplace Sexual Harassment).

ESPN rolled over in 2018 after criticism it had gotten too political. James Pitaro, the President, decided to "stick to sports," announce "that it is not our jobs to cover politics," and reaffirm to the NFL that it would not show the national anthem (you know, when Black players and allies were kneeling).

But politics are intertwined with life and address serious problems in our society that affect how people live. More often than not, the people who don't want to talk about politics are the ones most immune to the damage.

Publishing investigative reports on important issues that may make leagues look bad and closely covering social justice and racial unrest in sports is simply part of what a sports news organization does. And disciplining employees who are discriminatory is just the right thing to do.

But if you haven't done a good job of outlining a business strategy that is mindful of the nuance and complexity in our world or communicate policies that are values driven and consistent, then you end up with ESPN.

If leaders don't lead with transparency and proactively solve for workplace issues around DEI (and everything else they do), speculative sentiments like Rachel's will continue to percolate and create division amongst employees.

There are many white employees who think their companies are making decisions based on diversity... and many companies are. Ironically, that is part of what DEI work is pushing for, but not with the end goal of "diversity hires."

The distinction is whether a company is transparent, consistent, and clear in how it's making its decisions vs. having a poor track record and leaving employees to wonder if something has to do with diversity.

Leaders can't change people's minds. But they can create systems that demonstrate the values and guide the behaviors they expect of their employees. And they can give their people more information with which to make up their minds.

If you're not working to bake DEI into everything you do, you're not doing the work.

(If you're interested, below is the most nuanced discussion I found on this story. It's between people in the industry, most of whom are ex-ESPN.)