Shame on Eli Lily?

I am not a NASCAR guy, but as of today, I am rooting for him. (Image by Sarah Stierch (CC BY 4.0) via Wikipedia)

Late last week, Conor Daly, a NASCAR driver, learned that Eli Lily pulled his racing sponsorship within a day of news breaking that his father used a racial slur in an interview -- that occurred about thirty years ago, and before he was even born.

This news immediately brings to mind two things: the very wise words Ayn Rand had to say about racism, and the title of a Tara Smith philosophy article I haven't yet had a chance to read: "Intrinsic Value: Look-Say Ethics." For obvious reasons, I'll focus on the first, which should be required reading for the authors of that horrible decision, the civil rights establishment, and ... practically everyone else.

Here is the first (and longest) quote from Rand on the subject:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas -- or of inherited knowledge -- which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. (from "Racism," in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 126) [italics in original, bold added]

Consider especially the bolded quotes in light of what Eli Lily did. It certainly sounds like racism, both in terms of how Eli Lily seems to have judged Daly and the unjust consequences. But is it?

While I agree with many others that it is ridiculous to penalize someone for something he did not even do, I am inclined to blame the actions of Eli Lily on cowardice in the face of a new, fashionable form of racism that has begun to take hold in our culture, most often given voice in such forms as the word "privilege," the phrase "systemic racism," or the command "check your privilege" (translation: shut up). The company was obviously worried that someone, somewhere would call for a boycott of Eli Lily because of this connection, however tenuous, between their company and something -- evil? stupid? thoughtless? -- someone said decades ago. I can understand this line of reasoning up to a point: I wouldn't put it past today's corrupt civil rights establishment to do exactly that.

But understanding does not imply agreement. At some point a company has to be willing to say something to the effect of, "This is our brand representative, and he is no more deserving of slander for bigotry than we are." Otherwise, the next demand -- imagined or real -- will be more outrageous than the last.

Having said that, the very short time frame Eli Lily had to make their decision is a mitigating factor. The news broke Thursday, ahead of a Saturday race. Someone -- Eli Lily or perhaps Daly himself would have had to say something. Perhaps they could have mutually agreed to skip that race, but it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

That said none of the other possibilities is good in the long run: Eli Lily may well take a look-say approach to morality, and flinch at the mere mention of a certain word beginning with the letter n. Or maybe they cravenly or even cynically hoped for false praise from certain quarters. Whatever the case, taking a real moral stand requires looking at the individual and his full circumstances, making an independent judgement, and -- above all -- having the courage to stand up for what is right.

In this case, the right and honorable thing to do would be to make an effort to retract or clarify this decision, whichever is appropriate. (Based on what I know, I am inclined towards the first.) Assuming the former, at the very least, this company should issue an apology to Conor Daly, restore his sponsorship, and make it clear that they are doing so for the same reason that it is wrong to judge anyone on the basis of any inherited characteristic.

-- CAV