Should athletes "stick to sports"? And should sports organizations require them to?

Protests against the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia

In the last post, we spoke with Ben Whitehead, a high school teacher who uses sports as examples in his English and history classes. One of his important points was that for some hot button issues, the best example being Colin Kaepernick's kneeling to protest against police brutality, it's tough to discuss them in a school environment because opinions have already formed. Later, he passed along this AP story about the International Olympic Committee's decision. 

The kinds of statements that are not allowed include:

• Displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands
• Gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling 
• Refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol

The official document interpreting Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter was also published, which prohibits athletes from making any kind of statement or protest in a venue, at a medal ceremony, in the Olympic Village, or during the opening or closing ceremonies. They are allowed to make statements at media conferences, on social media, or at team meetings.

There is, and has been for many years, a stream of thought which says that celebrities of any kind -- whether actors, artists, or athletes -- should "stick to" their individual crafts and not comment on issues of the day. But there is also a time-honored tradition of the same people -- athletes included -- entering debates in compelling ways, whether Muhammad Ali refusing to be drafted, Sandy Koufax refusing to pitch in the World Series of Yom Kippur, or Kaepernick's protest.

In situations like this one, it's often helpful to step back and ask what the arguments against athlete protests are. There are two that seem to come up the most often: either that the playing field is not the place to raise societal issues (the "stick to sports" argument, and another is that the issue itself isn't appropriate to discuss in public (which is often the response to protests about LGBTQ and other social issues). Let's look at both of these arguments in turn.

"Stick to sports"

The notion that sports competitions, medal ceremonies, and public events aren't the right place to discuss social issues, and that athletes shouldn't use these often massively broadcast events as a platform, sounds to me like a suggestion that either denies the fact that an event like the Olympic Games or the Super Bowl is watched by billions of people across the globe. 

It also assumes that elite athletes are not qualified to discuss social issues. Olympic athletes -- let alone collegiate and professional athletes of any kind -- have often spent longer perfecting their skills, often beginning in childhood and continuing throughout a career that could last into their thirties and forties, than a professional politician. They have competed, often internationally, at a high level, learning how to interact with peers, managers, and international representatives at a time when many of their classmates don't yet have extensive social networks or interactions with people outside of them.

"Not appropriate"

There seems to also be a squeamishness about discussing difficult issues of public or social policy in athletics. Whether the subject is an athlete coming out of the closet, protesting a societal injustice, or endorsing a political candidate, these statements often run contrary to an institutional bias towards isolation from everyday politics. The counterargument is that if not sporting events -- which are watched by huge numbers of people both live and through broadcast -- where else can people who have been raised as citizens of the world, taken part in competitions that by their very nature showcase diversity -- where else can athletes of conscience make a statement?

One shouldn't pretend that these are easy issues to resolve, but in an environment where it is all but impossible to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic, it's worth trying. Where do you come down? Should athletes use their competitions and positions -- including their social media presences -- to raise, discuss, and influence matters of conscience?