The following is a statement of reflections by Chris Knoester, a member of SSI’s Faculty Governing Board and associate professor of sociology. May 15, 2107
On April 20, 2017, The Ohio State University Sports and Society Initiative hosted a panel on athlete activism. Former Director of News at ESPN, Vince Doria, provided overarching comments and directed the question and answer session with three elite athletes and renowned national anthem protestors: Tommie Smith, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, and Malcolm Jenkins. The panel was educational, inspirational, and notable. In the process, it helped to contextualize struggles for racial-ethnic and religious equalities, the resonance of national anthem protests, and the paradox of apolitical athletic events. Throughout the discussion, the generous spirits, critical thinking, and principled commitments of the panelists shone through.
Doria noted in his opening remarks, that athletic activism in the United States has largely been a struggle for racial-ethnic equality. He pointed to Smith as a pioneer in this movement, due to his involvement in the Olympic Project for Human Rights and iconic anthem protestat the ’68 Olympics. As artist Glen Kaino has shown, Smith laid a bridge to the present by further instigating discussion, analysis, and redress of racial-ethnic inequalities. In addition, the bridge paved the way for other displays of athletic protest. Nonetheless, continued fear and mistreatment of racial-ethnic and religious minorities journeyed across the metaphorical bridge, as well. In particular, anti-Black and anti-Muslim sentiments have been prominent over the past fifty years. Thus, exactly how, why, and to what extent national anthem protests have been effective in encouraging social change is debatable.
Yet, the resonance of national anthem protests was implicit throughout the panel. Clearly, Smith, Abdul-Rauf, and Jenkins were united by their anthem protests, but why were the protests so meaningful and controversial? The protests were nonviolent. They recognized injustices. They signaled the need for social change. They embodied looking beyond one’s own personal circumstances. They were made by informed citizens. They mobilized support. Yet, the protesters were (mere) athletes. They (apparently) disrespected the sanctity of a national anthem. They (presumably) thumbed their noses at military veterans. They inconvenienced and disturbed persons who wanted their entertainment and sports culture free of such demonstrations. They led to sanctions.
The touchstones of national anthem protest debates have been multi-layered and frequently addressed with emotional and passionate opinions. A primary contribution of the anthem protests has been to simply prompt people to take notice, reconsider their assumptions, engage in conversations about the matter, and react, accordingly. It is hard to think of another means of athletic activism that is as benign, yet effective.
Finally, the paradox of apolitical athletic events was an underlying theme and it is important to recognize. Each panelist objected to the common sentiment that athletes should “just shut up and play.” Indeed, most Americans believe that pro athletes should be required to stand for the national anthem. Yet, commercialized sports such as the Olympics, the NBA, and the NFL are the Bread and Circuses of our time and are used to curry favor for politicians, militarism, and patriotism. Commercialized sports are nearly as political as they can get.
Nonetheless, athletes are frequently criticized for their attempts at political agency and have even seemed to be blackballed for it. Smith and Abdul-Rauf were frequent subjects of hate speech and discrimination. Jenkins indicated that he was being well-supported in his activism efforts, likely due to his All-Pro status, but that is not quite the whole story.
Despite these consequences, each of the athletes remained steadfast in their reasons for protesting—and would do it again. They felt compelled to protest. As Jenkins put it, “Unfortunately, I’m sorry I have to mess up your Sunday, but there are some things that are a little bit more important than this game.” Later, he remarked that “At the end of the day, I’m not just an athlete. As much as you want me to be just an athlete– I’m not.”
Overall, the panel discussion and related interviews offered personal insights into fifty years of anthem protests. It was educational and inspirational in ways that one might anticipate. For example, it offered observations of the cultures of White, Christian and American supremacy, personal experiences of injustice, and stories of courage in standing up for your beliefs. It was also notable for less-anticipated reasons.
The generous spirits, critical thinking, and principled commitments of each panelist were impressive. Smith, Abdul-Rauf, and Jenkins were thoughtful, patient, and unassuming in their comments onstage, in their extensive interactions with the audience, and in press room interviews, after the panel. In fact, they stayed long after the formal event to shake hands, pose for pictures, and respond to questions. Throughout, they embodied the critical thinking skills that educators strive to develop; they were well-read, enjoyed engaging in intellectual discussions, and offered creative and well-reasoned insights (e.g., see Smith’s career as a sociologist, see Jenkins and Abdul-Rauf on education, see Jenkins on criminal justice reform). Furthermore, they displayed principled commitments to their respective causes and to other athlete activists. Smith, Abdul-Rauf, and Jenkins were willing and able to look beyond their own circumstances and immediate best interests to work for social change in their daily lives– and as contributors to broader civil rights movements.
May we all.