Tennis Australia Finds Itself Courting Controversy

I wouldn't want to be in their tennis shoes. A furore is brewing because Margaret Court has spoken her truth and said she wanted to be invited to the Australian Open and accorded the same honour as Rod Laver received on the 50th anniversary of his second Grand Slam. Not everyone is going to deserve such a fuss. Laver was a player so elite; he's had a stadium named after him. But wait. So has Margaret Court and regardless of whether or not Serena Williams ultimately eclipses Court's record on the number of Slams won, by any metric you like, Court was a once-in-a-generation athlete and an ornament to the game. However, Margaret Court, who is a Christian and whose day job is pastor of a family church in Perth, has caused a major headache for Tennis Australia with her outspoken views on same sex marriage at the time of the national referendum. With the 50th anniversary of her own Grand Slam approaching, it appears she has been waiting for an invitation to a tribute in her honour at a sporting event in January that may never come.

Are we not a democracy? Are most of us not wedded to free speech as a guiding principle? So many of those who have come from totalitarian regimes (and even a few of us too) love our country for this.

Should we be able to penalise an athlete for behaviour that occurs outside the domain of their sport? Well. We do it. Shane Warne was never made captain of the Australian Cricket team for alleged off-field indiscretions and Wayne Carey was ex-communicated for a long time before radio then television cautiously but purposefully brought him back.

Court, and certainly initially, didn't condemn the LGBTIQ community to the fiery depths of hell. She declared her voting intention in a referendum. If she wasn't one of the greatest Australian sports people to ever grace a court/field/pitch and have the platform of sports celebrity from which to speak, we would probably never have known her views.

Should we ring-fence politics and religion from sporting achievements? That's easy only in theory. We've got Israel Folau, sacked ostensibly for speaking out strongly against the stated views of his employer about minority groups. He and Court are Christians. They are entitled to their faith and they are entitled to their opinions. The key difference for me is that Folau probably had explicit or implied clauses in his contract about what he could or could not say as a representative of his sport and its governing body. As far as I'm aware, Margaret Court is not employed by Tennis Australia and TA is quite within its rights to say that her expressed view (providing it is accurately reported) is at odds with TA's position on diversity, inclusion and appreciation of difference. They have done this and I applaud them.

An AFL team lost TAC sponsorship years ago when one of its players was caught drinking and driving. Organisations are often vicariously liable for the actions (and comments) of their representatives but Court has probably not said anything at odds with the Family Church to which she ministers. Indeed she has probably expressed views entirely congruent with the values and principles of her church and as its pastor presumably enjoys a social contract that permits her to speak her truth. It's just that many of us don't agree with her views. And if we felt that way and were members of her church, we could walk.

But now Court has complicated things by asking for an acknowledgment that one would have to say objectively post #MeToo is entirely justified if one truly believes in gender equity. And some of the same people slinging insults and threats against Court would have body slammed Tennis Australia if there was differential recognition for male and female players. If not for this.

Free speech cannot be sacrosanct. Racial vilification legislation attempts to address this notion. If there were no limits to "free speech", passionate Christians could prosthelytise all day and night to uncomfortable co-workers. Imams could preach Jihad at communal prayers with impunity. Indeed any unpopular staff member could be told every day to take a long walk off a short pier. Without "live and let live", people of national origins with a long torrid history of conflict could simply refuse to work alongside each other (This used to happen a lot in manufacturing between employees of Greek and Turkish origin and I doubt this would be tolerated now).

What's intriguing in the media commentary I've seen so far is that the feminists are not all rising up as one to demand Tennis Australia gives Margaret Court the honour they bestowed on Rod Laver. Does that make us part-time feminists? Or do we rank gender equality below equality on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity when we think the situation calls for it? Is any expression of religion just too much on the nose these days for some or can we just not abide someone disagreeing with us? If we preach love and tolerance, how can that be selective?

If we are saying it is not ok for Margaret Court to express a view on a referendum in a democracy and where everyone's vote is equal, then it follows that we don't have a right to do so either.

If we're prepared to say no-one should express any Christian views out loud, then can my client identify himself publicly as a gay man?

Can a friend identify herself as a proud Yorta Yorta woman.

I cannot be a Jewish Australian or an Australian Jew or maybe I can as long as I never tell anybody. Should we become like France where no-one can walk down the street wearing a crucifix, a hijab or a Star of David? I hope not. How does doing so hurt anyone? It is simply a person's expression of their commitment to their faith just as a couple, including gay couples walking down the street holding hands may be a show of commitment to each other.

Maybe meat lovers should be offended that someone identifies as a vegan. Or a vegan principal should be able to ban meat from the school cafeteria.

I worked with a government body some years ago and a Seventh Day Adventist objected to the fact that the mobile Blood Bank came round once a month. She wanted it stopped. Many of the staff determined her view was offensive. They shouted the majority should rule! But our anti-discrimination law doesn't work that way. It only takes one person to be offended. The organisation agonised over it but maintained the status quo because giving blood was totally aligned with its community focus and ultimately a personal decision for every employee.

A few years ago Councils decided Christmas decorations might be offensive to some and stopped putting them up. Guess what? They're back again.

Where do we draw the line? Blowed if I know all the time and I work in this space! One thing I would say is that at work, we're a "captured audience". We don't typically choose our colleagues and we're all entitled to feel safe and to be respected. I believe an extra layer of protection and circumspection needs to apply here as opposed to the dinner party between close friends who may debate and disagree but with the inherent protection of long-standing relationships to buffer any discord.

The provocations above are emotive and complex. The answers require deep thought, sensitivity to others and the safe space in which people can offer up different perspectives vs. simply fall into line. The majority of Australians don't agree with Margaret Court as shown by the referendum result but, reflecting for a brief moment on what is going on in Hong Kong, I cherish the fact that every person in Australia over 18 was entitled to vote and could cast their vote in physical safety even if some were clearly not comfortable to voice their opinion in other forums. Retribution these days can be swift, vitriolic and anonymous.

What I cannot and will never abide are people on social media calling Margaret Court the "c word" or threatening to stab her. Anyone doing the same towards any gay person would be rightfully accused of extreme homophobic views and be regarded as a menace to society.

I am sincere when I say I don't envy Tennis Australia in deliberating on a decision about how to honour Court for her upcoming milestone because whatever they do or don't do will leave many disenfranchised. The organisation faces an awful dilemma - defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as an unsolvable problem. Those who don't see a problem at all are likely to have adopted a highly positional stance. TA can have the best Strategic Communications advisers in Australia on its payroll and they will struggle to find a way forward without a world of pain.

It is quite possible Tennis Australia would like nothing more than to honour a great Australian but if we've learnt anything from the Adam Goodes story, we know that people can vocalise their discontent publicly and viciously and TA wouldn't want our incredible Australian Open, the so-called "Friendly Slam" to be marred by acrimony, controversy, humiliation for Court or hurt to those who feel affronted by her viewpoint. I saw Robyn Wright (House of Cards) nominated for a best actress Emmy some weeks ago on a televised awards night. She is not Kevin Spacey. She played his on-screen partner, yet she received almost no applause when the nominee list was read. Guilt by association. Referred shame.

We are truly between a rock and a hard court on this one.

Leanne Faraday-Brash is an organisational psychologist, coach and media commentator. She is Principal of Brash Consulting, a Melbourne-based practice specialising in organisational psychology, organisation development and "workplace justice" (Equal Opportunity, ethics and employee relations). Leanne is the author of “Vulture Cultures: How to stop them ravaging your performance, people, profit and public image” published by Australian Academic Press. Leanne can be reached at www.brashconsulting.com.au