I don’t know if you follow sports enough to catch the uproar over Colin Kaepernick’s protest against police brutality. Kaepernick is a football quarterback playing for the San Francisco Forty Niners. He’s not great but he generates attention because he began his career so quickly and dramatically. He’s young and earnest and a little impulsive –like many young people.
During the playing of the National Anthem, Kaepernick continued to kneel while his teammates stood at attention. He did so quietly, with little fanfare. To me, this gesture did not seem very confrontational but the press made a big deal of it.. Gradually, others have either followed his example or tried other ways to stand for the rights of young Black men, like linking arms or raising their right fists the way that Tommy Smith did in the 1968 Olympics. Stephen Ross, the billionaire owner of the Miami Dolphins, among an increasing group of people across American, have joined in common cause with the protesters.
But the general reaction to Kkaepernick’s protest has been negative. Throughout the country, innumerable politicians, business owners and countless others have offered their often heated objections to Kaepernick’s gesture. The public conversation has not focused on police brutality or equal rights. It has focused, instead, on Kaepernick’s right to protest versus the “disrespect” he has shown to a patriotic American ritual, the National Anthem. The challenge to his right has been stunning to me, considering all of the abusive, massively disrespectful behavior we see in local, state, and national politics. Compare Kaepernick’s behavior to Trump and the outrageous, fact-free Birther challenge to Barak Obama’s presidential legitimacy. And this is but one sign of disrespect to the dignity of our highest office. Why should Kaepernick be held to a different standard than the politicians. In fact, his “protest” was relatively respectful.
On the other hand, the objections that have filled sports pages of newspapers, have, paradoxically, added great fuel to athletes’ desire to protest. There seems to be a little movement building. For better or worse, athletes are in the limelight and have some power to influence their fans. Since so many of these athletes are people of color and have managed to ‘rise’ in one of the arenas most open to them, why shouldn’t they be able to use their success in the service of their values? Business people certainly do.
New York Times columnist David Brooks addressed this issue in his September 16th column. I found the article smug and misguided and wrote a Letter to the Editor in response. Given the substantial response that Brooks’ article received, there seems little likelihood that mine will be published. So I decided to send it to you in the form of a mini-blog post. This version is slightly changed just in case The Times does publish it. I hope you like it.
David Brooks’ invocation of American civic religion, “The Uses of Patriotism,” runs much too close to the 1960’s condemnation of Vietnam War protesters. “Love it or leave it” was the sanctimonious and divisive cry. Why can’t we love it and protest when our country does not live to its values? The right to protest is baked into the American tradition and the American Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of assembly, association, and speech. The Boston Tea Party, a disrespectful protest of British taxation, helped precipitate the Revolutionary War. In my view, we honor our nation by continuing practices that led to its formation and that guarantee the values on which it stands.
Brooks, himself, notes that “Every significant American reform movement was shaped by” self-criticism. Protest is self-criticism in protean form. Should we not have protested slavery when it was sanctioned by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution? How about the absence of women’s suffrage and discriminatory housing practices that have made it hard for every group of immigrants, from the Irish to the Latinos, to buy their own homes? Almost all of America’s great social and economic achievements have come on the back of protest.
Every protest is met with resistance and disdain, as though they don’t fit in polite society. I have written, myself, in favor of a more dignified and restrained presidential politics. (https://barrydym.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/a-call-for-a-more-dignified-and-restrained-presidential-politics/); and I find the current lying, name-calling, and bullying vile. But, Brooks wants to sanitize protest too much. He should know that self-criticism is inevitably messy and upsetting; and it does call into question the culture and values of the ruling classes. In fact, protest, by its nature, arises outside of the halls of power. It is the means taken by people who lack the institutional power to enact change through formal governmental channels. In Thursday’s column, Brooks stands with those ruling classes and against the very tradition at whose shrine he asks us to worship.
We must stand with the original Tea Partiers, with the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes, with Martin Luther King, Jr., and his call for nonviolent protest, and with all who seek to highlight the need for changes in law and public behavior—even when they are irreverent. Irreverence towards one set of “values”—standing for the National Anthem—often signals reverence for another set. In this case, the more hallowed statement of values comes in both the right of free speech and in equal protection under the law, as it is assured by the 14th Amendment. I believe that we should be proud of young people who speak up in this way.