Right now, it’s difficult to scroll through social media or flip through TV channels without seeing an update on the Olympics in Tokyo. Whether it’s Katie Ledecky’s latest world record or the excitement of an obscure sport like handball, the international competition tends to take over our lives every couple of years. You may, however, notice a lack of political protest at these games.
Those were banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
They argue that the focus of the Olympics should be the athletes and their accomplishments. Their host countries paid good money to send them to break records and make a name for themselves and athletes ought to recognize that and not “hijack” the event with their own causes. The IOC cited the organization’s political neutrality as another reason for this rule.
The problem is that this stance totally ignores the decades-long tradition of using the Olympics’ megaphone to shed light on important social causes.
John Carlos and Tommie Smith partook in one of the world’s most well-known and visible political protests by raising their fists in a Black Power salute during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. For their bravery, Carlos and Smith were suspended from the team and sent home. The recent Olympics controversy highlights how little the world has changed since the 1960s. Rather than punishing a protest after the fact, the world would prefer the protest not happen in the first place.
Protest history during the Olympics is much more extensive than the raised-fist-salute. In 1966, Czechoslovak gymnast Věra Čáslavská turned away from the Soviet flag in protest of the annexation of her country during her medal ceremonies. In 1906, Peter O’Connor of Ireland protested the IOC rules that forced him to compete under the Union Jack by waving a green flag during his medal ceremonies.
Athletes aren’t the only ones who have used the Olympics for political purposes. President Reagan once withheld the entire Olympic team from Moscow, which hosted the event in 1980. He even went so far as to threaten rescinding the passport of any athlete who sought a different flag under which to compete – a pretty common Olympic practice.
Not only does the IOC’s 2021 stance ignore this painted history, but it also misclassifies protest entirely. Taking a knee against police brutality or raising a fist in support of civil rights isn’t a “political” protest per se, it’s about human rights.
The demonstrations against police brutality throughout the summer of 2020 were a cry for help – one 200 years in the making. Sure, there were calls to reform policing through progressive legislation and to shift funding away from law enforcement and toward citizen-based organizations. Rather, those protests were about decades of pent-up frustration and grief that communities of color can’t live their lives without fear of being wrongfully murdered by our “protectors.” They were about systemic racism and a country that fundamentally discriminates against millions.
The media and other powers that be redefined protests as purely political. After all, “human rights protests” is a phrase reserved for other countries – the countries our politicians like to hold up as somehow less than ours. If they can get the public to call them “politics,” then it’s suddenly acceptable to be on the other side of that issue. This rhetorical wool over our eyes worked all too well.
In short, the IOC rules about protesting during events or the medal ceremonies this year reject history in deference to publishing a watered-down product and misclassify human rights as politics. To do so is deeply shameful and anti-progress.
