Our double standards on athletes and politics are on display
Our Double Standards on Athletes and Politics Are on Display
The Giants' Controversy and Durkheim's Framework
Our double standards on athletes and politics - During my time in college, my most influential professor was deeply drawn to the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who posited that humans form moral communities through shared values and rituals. Durkheim argued that modern society, despite its fragmentation, fosters the “free development of individual variations.” This idea raises a critical question: What binds us together in a world where individualism increasingly defines our identities?
According to Durkheim, collective solidarity hinges on the belief in personal liberty. This concept becomes evident in the recent debate surrounding three San Francisco Giants players who wore a Biblical verse on their caps during Pride Night. While left-leaning critics labeled them as homophobes, conservatives framed the action as a defense against religious discrimination. The tension between these perspectives reveals a broader ideological conflict over how political expression is regulated in sports.
Major League Baseball’s intervention in the matter—warning players for breaching uniform rules against political statements—only intensified the controversy. The Trump administration seized the opportunity to accuse the league of violating the Civil Rights Act, citing the allowance of “Black Lives Matter” patches as evidence of a double standard. Yet, this reasoning overlooks the nuances of how political messages are permitted in different contexts. The Giants’ choice to display a Biblical verse on their caps became a lightning rod for accusations of bias, regardless of the league’s own rules.
A Clash of Values
Conservatives, in turn, have their own inconsistencies. Consider Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who became a symbol of resistance by kneeling during the National Anthem to protest police brutality. The NFL’s response to Kaepernick’s activism was swift and harsh, with players like him facing penalties for their actions. Yet, the same conservatives who championed the Giants’ right to express religious views now accuse the league of hypocrisy for enforcing its own political boundaries.
When President Trump addressed the issue in 2017, he criticized the NFL for allowing players to “disrespect our flag,” urging owners to “get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired.” The following year, Trump went further, suggesting that players who knelt should be deported, declaring, “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or… maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” These remarks underscored a vision of patriotism that prioritized conformity over dissent.
Liberals, however, defended Kaepernick with fervor, framing his protest as an act of patriotism. Barack Obama, then president, emphasized that “as long as they’re doing it within the law… it’s also their right.” Similarly, Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke argued in 2018 that “I can think of nothing more American than to peacefully stand up, or take a knee, for your rights, anytime, anywhere, in any place.” His statement resonated widely, earning him praise from figures like LeBron James and an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ show.
The Liberal Double Standard
Despite their support for Kaepernick, liberals have not extended the same tolerance to the San Francisco Giants players. The Giants were urged to fire their athletes, mirroring the NFL’s treatment of Kaepernick. This inconsistency highlights a pattern: when political expression aligns with progressive values, it is celebrated; when it challenges those values, it is punished.
The Chicago Bulls’ guard Jaden Ivey was recently waived after posting a video condemning Pride Month for its “unrighteousness.” This decision echoed the Giants’ fate, demonstrating that even within liberal circles, there is a willingness to penalize athletes for expressing views that diverge from mainstream narratives. The author of the original piece questions whether this reflects a genuine commitment to free speech or a selective enforcement of political correctness.
The Giants’ situation is not an isolated case. It mirrors a recurring theme in American sports culture: the selective application of free expression rights based on the political leanings of the message. While the NFL’s handling of Kaepernick is celebrated as a stand for justice, the Giants’ dissent is seen as an act of defiance, regardless of the intent behind it. This disparity underscores the duality of standards in how athletes are judged for their political actions.
Emile Durkheim's Legacy and the Path Forward
Individual freedom, as Durkheim envisioned, is a shared religion in itself. But for this freedom to endure, society must also uphold moral codes that protect it. The Giants’ incident and Kaepernick’s saga illustrate this tension—when deeply held beliefs are challenged, the instinct is to react with disgust or anger, as if to erase what causes discomfort.
As the author reflects, the Giants’ players, like Kaepernick, are part of a nation that values the right to express one’s convictions. “It’s just something I believe in, and I stand firm in that,” said pitcher Landon Roupp, explaining his decision to affix the Biblical verse to his cap. “Thankfully, we live in a country where we have freedom to believe what we want.” This statement encapsulates the essence of Durkheim’s argument: that individualism and collective identity coexist when shared values are respected.
The crux of the issue lies in the balance between personal liberty and societal unity. While the Giants’ players were allowed to express their beliefs, their critics were quick to dismiss those views as incompatible with the spirit of Pride. Conversely, Kaepernick’s dissent was hailed as patriotic, even as his actions were met with hostility. This dynamic reveals that the concept of free speech is not universal but contingent on the message it conveys. As Durkheim warned, individualism cannot thrive without shared moral guardrails, yet those guardrails are often adjusted to reflect the preferences of the moment.
The debate over the Giants’ caps and Kaepernick’s kneeling is more than a dispute over sports teams’ policies. It reflects a deeper societal divide, where the same principles of freedom and expression are applied selectively. Whether through a Biblical verse or a knee to the flag, athletes are asked to navigate the fine line between personal conviction and collective acceptance. The question remains: Can a society truly claim to value freedom if it does not extend that right to all voices, regardless of their political stance?