Opinion
Monday February 10, 2020
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Silenced on the biggest stage Julia Chaffers Columnist
“It is a fundamental principle that sport is neutral and must be separate from political, religious, or any other type of interference.” So said the International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.) as it announced the rules for protest at the upcoming summer Olympic Games. While athletes may express themselves freely in the media, they will not be allowed to take politically motivated actions during the events and medals ceremonies. By silencing athletes in their most visible opportunities to speak up, the Olympic committee undermines its claim to values such as equality worldwide. At Princeton, we value our athletes as fierce competitors, but more importantly as the roommates, friends, and classmates they are off the field. Yet increasingly the world has less appreciation for professional athletes; more and more we require them to be onedimensional — just players, rather than people with ideas to express. We remember some of our most celebrated athletes — Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Tommie Smith, and John Carlos, to name a few — not in spite of but because of their out-
spoken advocacy for a better world. But though the two men are today admired for their courage and have since been named to the U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame, Smith and Carlos’ now-iconic raised fists, which Smith described as a “cry for freedom and for human rights” both in the United States and globally, would not be permitted today. For example, after fencer Race Imboden knelt on the medal podium and hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised a fist during the national anthem at last summer’s Pan American games, both athletes were placed on probation for a year. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Imboden invoked Ali, Smith, and Carlos as he explained his decision to kneel, in an echo of Colin Kaepernick’s protest against racial injustice. Berry shared similar reasoning, emphasizing that the previous day had marked five years since Michael Brown was killed in his hometown of Ferguson, Miss. The Olympic committee’s reasoning for the policy is that “the focus for the field of play and related ceremonies must be on celebrating athletes’ performance, and showcasing sport and its values.” In a media world where cries for civility rule the day and the presentation of objectivity is seemingly held above all else, it is unfortunately unsurprising that the Olympic committee places appearance over sub-
stance. But with this policy, they mistake neutrality for the absence of a stance, when supporting the status quo itself constitutes taking a position. They fail to recognize that forced unity is not true togetherness. What are these values that the I.O.C. wants to showcase through sport? Unity for its own sake? Silencing voices that may ruff le feathers, even if their substantive point is important? The I.O.C. does not clarify what it stands for, even as it commands athletes to fall in line behind its injunctions. Whether the Olympic committee acknowledges it or not, sports are political. Staying silent about a problem can say just as much as standing in support of it. The Olympic committee argues that the international stage is not the place to show dissent. But one of the most important aspects of an effective protest is its visibility. At the Olympics, you can attract the eyes of the world in a way not possible at any other time. People who would not otherwise pay attention to activists will listen to what their favorite athlete has to say. Smith and Carlos’ fists stand out in our memory because their action was a departure from business as usual; we celebrate them because of the risk they took. But this is the way of the world. Smith and Carlos face fierce backlash for their actions, including suspension from the Olympic team. Ali
was not universally celebrated in his day. People called him brash and too political when he refused to serve in Vietnam. He was stripped of his boxing license and nearly sent to prison. Now, the three are revered for their outspokenness. We are watching the same process in real time as Colin Kaepernick has gone from rising star to blackballed dissenter when he dared to use his stage to speak up. With his Nike campaign a testament to the reshaping of his image, one could argue that he is moving to the martyr status, as another wronged athlete who will ultimately be seen as right in the end. But if history will come around on athletes who protest, why should they face punishment in the moment? There is this incredible dissonance between the way we remember our heroes from the past and the way we treat our living icons. Athletes should not have to choose between their career and doing what is right; yet, we force them to. And the more we do so, the more careers that will be lost, and the more that other thoughtful voices will be silenced because they cannot afford to take the risk. And we are all worse off for that.
Arman Badrei Columnist
It is in the hardest moments of life that truly test faith, and I lost nearly all of mine that remained in politics after President Trump’s State of the Union Address. No, it wasn’t because of the President’s message — regardless of whether his address was exaggerated, misleading, or wholly accurate. Even the disrespect that members of the Republican Party showed throughout the impeachment trial — a constitutional process — hadn’t made me a full-fledged pessimist. I was all but convinced that partisanship had fully supplanted the Constitution in priority when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) defended his vote not to call witnesses in favor of maintaining some semblance of national unity. He claimed the prospect of unearthing new evidence “would just pour gasoline on cultural fires that are burning out there.” Similarly, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) argued that he both respected the impeachment process and condemned the actions of President Trump. Yet, he voted against the motion to subpoena witnesses and documents, as well as voting to acquit the President. Long gone, it seemed, were the days when legislators universally respected one paramount document before all else: the Constitution. But no, even the actions of these senators and others during the impeachment process hadn’t stripped me of all my optimism. What transpired on Feb. 4, however, withered my confidence and respect for our political processes to a pile of
In his speech, as well as in a hand-signed note that contained excerpts from the speech and was delivered to his Republican colleagues, Sen. Romney took a stand. And I was reminded why I haven’t become entirely exhausted and disgusted by politics. Sen. Romney declared a sentiment so fundamental yet so entirely missed by modern politicians: that he was dutybound — and more personally, faith-driven through his oath to God — to “exercise ‘impartial justice’” and to defend “the foundation of our Republic’s success,” the Constitution. After an emotional 10 second pause only a minute into his speech, Sen. Romney vocalized the internal dilemma he faced of being tasked with objectively examining a President of his own party and pronounced the decision “the most difficult I have ever faced.” In the ensuing minutes of his speech, Sen. Romney outlined his reasons with trepidation but also calm logic. He argued against the three points of the President’s defense, reaffirmed the nature of the impeachment process outlined by the founding fathers, and described the obfuscation that the President’s defense had created with this process. He discussed how his decision to convict would in all likelihood not remove the President from office, would almost certainly create anger within his party, and could influence his reelection bid. Toward the conclusion of his speech, Sen. Romney remarked, “We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.” I, however, do not believe the majority of Republican senators followed their individual consciences. They acted throughout much of the impeachment process in a partisan-first, power-hungry behav-
Jonathan Ort ’21
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John G. Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Jonathan Ort ’21
144TH MANAGING BOARD
Julia Chaffers is a sophomore from Wellesley, Mass. She can be reached at chaffers@princeton.edu.
Thank you, Mitt Romney: An appreciation for the rare value of integrity dust. Immediately after Trump finished his address, while the cameras were still rolling, I watched Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA-12) tear apart four sections of a copy of Trump’s speech. At first, I laughed. I laughed the same way I had when Trump used to ridicule his political opponents at the Republican debates in 2016 and the same way I do when he makes a base-pleasing crude comment or espouses his signature political incorrectness. I laughed for a moment, and then felt the same way I did after each of such episodes: shameful of the actions our public servants conducted in an office that used to mean something. I neither admire nor support Pelosi’s decision. When asked why she ripped up the speech, Pelosi responded, “because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.” While I can acknowledge the frustration and anger she must feel toward Trump, it diminished my faith in Democratic leadership as a voter. In that moment, premeditated or not, Speaker Pelosi acted like the very person she’d been determined to remove from the American political scene. She stooped to the level of her enemy, and in turn, damaged the optics of the party to moderates and strengthened bitter partisanship in a conflict that seems to normalize unhealthy, unproductive dissent and tribalism more by the day. As with all things in life, though, the pendulum always swings to the other side. This time, the pendulum came in the form of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). I listened to Sen. Romney speak for eight minutes on why he would vote to convict President Trump on the charge of abuse of power, the only Republican to breach partisan walls.
editor-in-chief
ior masqueraded as a desire to maintain stability in the U.S. and tackle other, more meaningful issues as opposed to this alleged waste of time. While I do admit that Democrats too are sometimes guilty of partisanship to the same degree, it was in this episode that the Republicans failed to rise above it. Through Sen. Romney’s outspoken defiance to his own party, he demonstrated a trait I had believed to be extinct in the brains and vocabularies of lawmakers until now: integrity. Sen. Romney earned my respect, but more importantly, he demonstrated nobility in the job of public service. He was governed by the single most important interest, the Constitution. Of course, it didn’t take long for critics to blast him for his utterly traitorous decision. Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted that Romney was simply “bitter that he will never be POTUS” and that he is “officially a member of the resistance & should be expelled from the @GOP,” while also calling him a p***y in an Instagram post. Regardless of your politics, Sen. Romney affirmed an ideal upon which every American can agree. His bravery — as painful as having to call something like this as “brave” when it in fact should be the norm — is both refreshing and hopeful. He has reminded me of what being a politician truly means, about the honor with which one should execute their job in the United States government, and about the sanctity of the Constitution and the processes it has established. As a Politics major at the University, I sincerely thank you, Mitt Romney. You have rightfully represented our nation. Arman Badrei is a sophomore from Houston, Tex. He can be reached at abadrei@princeton. edu.
managing editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 Cy Watsky ’21 Sections listed in alphabetical order. chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Anna McGee ’22 associate copy editors Celia Buchband ’22 Sydney Peng ’22 head design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 associate design editors Abby Nishiwaki ’23 Kenny Peng ’22 head features editor Josephine de La Bruyère ’22 head multimedia editor Mark Dodici ’22 associate video editor Mindy Burton ’23 head news editors Claire Silberman ’22 Zachary Shevin ’22 associate news and features editor Marie-Rose Sheinerman ’22 associate news editors Naomi Hess ’22 Allan Shen ’22 head opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Madeleine Marr ’21 associate opinion editors Shannon Chaffers ’22 Emma Treadway ’22 head sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 associate sports editors Josephine de La Bruyère ’22 Emily Philippides ’22
NIGHT STAFF copy Andrew Tang ’23 Ellie Chang ’23 Heather Gualke ’22 design Chelsea Ding ’22 Anika Maskara ’23
Recycle your ‘Prince’!
