By Bailey Knecht, columnist

On March 30, lawmakers in North Carolina voted to repeal House Bill 2—commonly known as HB2 or the “bathroom bill”—an ordinance that forced transgender people to use bathrooms based on their birth certificate rather than their gender identity.

Lawmakers replaced it with what they called a compromise: House Bill 142, which prohibits local governments from regulating access to restrooms but also gives power to business owners to refuse services to the LGBTQA+ community. The bill also prohibits the implementation of any new anti–discrimination ordinances for the next three years.

The bill replacement occurred, in part, because of pressure from various sporting organizations. In recent months, the NCAA, NBA and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) announced they would protest HB2 by refusing to hold certain events in North Carolina. The NCAA and ACC chose not to hold tournament and championship events there, while the NBA decided to move its All-Star game to another state, all as a means to provide their fans with a safe and respectable environment.

With the implementation of HB142, however, all three organizations have announced that they will cease their boycotts and consider North Carolina as a potential site for future events.

Here is an excerpt from the NCAA Board of Governors’ statement:

“The NCAA did not lobby for any specific change in the law. The Board of Governors, however, was hopeful that the state would fully repeal HB2 in order to allow the host communities to ensure a safe, healthy, discrimination-free atmosphere for the championship sites. While the new law meets the minimal NCAA requirements, the board remains concerned that some may perceive North Carolina’s moratorium against affording opportunities for communities to extend basic civil rights as a signal that discriminatory behavior is permitted and acceptable, which is inconsistent with the NCAA Bylaws. However, we recognize the quality championships hosted by the people of North Carolina in years before HB2. And this new law restores the state to that legal landscape: A landscape similar to other jurisdictions presently hosting NCAA championships.”

The NCAA admits that the new bill maintains loopholes that allow for discriminatory action, yet cites the “quality championships hosted by the people of North Carolina” as an acceptable reason to return to the state.

It would be unreasonable to expect sporting organizations to make all of their scheduling decisions based on politics across the country. But these organizations have dedicated themselves to the specific cause of combatting the bathroom bill and fighting for LGBTQA+ rights, and they should have upheld their stance until meaningful change was accomplished.

Instead, each organization chose to end its boycott while the work towards equality remains unfinished. Sure, the focus may have shifted away from forcing transgender people to use certain bathrooms, but HB142 essentially makes it illegal to prevent discrimination – not exactly what I’d call progress.

The decision to reward North Carolina sets a precedent for other states hoping to oppress the LGBTQA+ community – lawmakers in those states now know that they can pass discriminatory bills without consequences, as long as those bills aren’t too discriminatory.

We saw the effect that boycotts had on North Carolina lawmakers. The NCAA in particular brings an abundance of economic prosperity to the college basketball-obsessed state, while the NBA All-Star game and ACC postseason events bring their own share of revenue.

According to The Associated Press, HB2 had the potential to cost North Carolina about $3.8 billion in lost business over a 12-year span, and the absence of certain sporting events surely would have contributed to that figure. The politicians felt the pressure and the financial consequences of the boycott, and they reacted by changing the law (albeit in insufficient fashion).

Had the NCAA, NBA and ACC chosen to remain tough and continue to use their influence, the laws in North Carolina may have shifted even further in favor of equality. Although I don’t believe the governing powers of sports leagues necessarily have the responsibility to force political change, the organizations all claim to be supporters of diversity and inclusion, and the boycott was an effective way of proving their dedication to equality.

They had the opportunity to stand for tolerance and justice, but with their decision to return to North Carolina after the newly implemented “compromise,” the organizations are sending the message that sports and financial gain take precedent over the well-being of the LGBTQA+ community.

Maybe it’s just me, but I believe that when it comes to basic human rights, a compromise isn’t good enough.