The Politics and Potential of Sport Workshop, 10th March 2016, University of Texas at Austin
Summary Document and Position Papers
1
The Politics and Potential of Sport Workshop, 10th March 2016, University of Texas at Austin
On Thursday 10th March 2016 an international group of leading academics, activists, athletes, policy makers and media professionals gathered at the University of Texas for the “The Politics and Potential of Sport”. The workshop and seminar was organised by the Diversity Sport Thinktank and was sponsored by the Center for European Studies and The Texas Program in Sports and Media. The expert participants were: Professor Ben Carrington of the University of Texas US/Europe), Shireen Ahmed, Sports Activist writer and journalist (US), Dr. Brenda Elsey of Hofstra University (US), Dr. Jules Boykoff of Pacific University (US), Mori Taheripour of the Wharton School of Business (US), Michelle Moore of Moore Development Sports Consultancy (Europe), Etan Thomas, Former NBA player athlete activist (US), Piara Powar of The FARE Network (Europe), Katrina Karkazis of Stanford University (US), Janice Forsyth of House Western University (Canada), Michael Johnson, Former professional football player (Europe), Jessica Luther, Sports Journalist and UT Fellow, Keme Nzerem, Journalist (Europe) and John Olivieira, Media professional (Europe).)The workshop themes focused on the Politics of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, athlete activism and transgender and intersex rights in sport. A number of UT Faculty staff also inputted into the discussion.
Workshop 1 – The Politics of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games Jules Boykoff (Position Paper), Janice Forsyth (Respondent), Brenda Elsey (Chair). In 2011, 63% of the population in Rio thought that sports mega-events like the Olympics and 2014 World Cup would bring the city great benefits. By the end of 2015, only 27% shared that perception. Fewer cities are bidding to host the Olympic Games due to the increased negative media attention. Media plays a role in the cycle of criticizing the politics of the Olympics. There is a three-week period of amnesia about the negative politics, instead celebrating medal counts and focusing on the ‘positives’ of sport. Then shortly after the games it’s back to concern about the next Olympics.
The media tell specific stories shaped in racism and othering so that concerns are seemingly higher in Beijin and Sochi, but not in London or Vancouver. Greater attention must be paid to amplifying voices of dissent. With the power of social media grassroots voices are amplified. Boston’s grassroots movement is an example, its not that these voices of dissent were never there, they just weren’t amplified by mainstream media. The group discussed elements of othering within the countries where these Olympic issues arise. For example Vancouver othered aboriginals. Despite the current situation in Rio with brute dispossession and gentrification, there is a spirit of solidarity and resistance in these communities. Women are at the forefront of the fight back.
Eduardo Paes, has made many environmental promises to the people of Rio. However if the Olympics are a spectacle, then the (social) Island, which will be the Olympic village will be converted into luxury condos. 2 In the words of Carlos Carvalho: ‘noble housing, not housing for the poor’. Plans are for 119 favelas to be evicted and then destroyed. The government has given no criteria for which communities would be destroyed. One of these favelas was Vila Autrodomo along the water. The Guanabara Bay lake water is highly contaminated and the treatment of this water has been pushed back from 2016 to 2035. There are several viruses floating in the water with a 99% chance of contracting a virus from drinking 3 tsp water in Guanabara Bay. Despite these serious issues around water, Olympic personnel make dismissive comments such as ‘I might go swimming in it’, or ‘thank goodness for the Olympics because we’ve brought attention to it’.
Brazil is the second largest black nation behind Nigeria. In Rio 52% of the population are black and inequalities impact black people disproportionately. There are several on-going black centered organisations that have been pointing out these problems for a long time. These campaigns locate sport mega-events in anti-blackness. Despite these attempts, anti-black violence increase while indicators for white people in Brazil becomes better. It is important also to consider the Olympics as an anti-black empire state that criminalizes indigenous populations and young Muslims. Paying attention to these issues also highlights the recurring nature of the Olympics negative impacts on cities around the world.
Olympics bring into focus the dehumanization of black people. However, it is also about capitalism and neoliberalism. The Olympics is not a neoliberal process but spits out neoliberalism when it arrives in a host city. Work with organizations like UNICEF and Amnesty International is important, it can’t just be in the streets or working in the institutions of power. It’s both but sometimes the people who get a seat at the table should be agitators to the international federations. The radical flank effect – e.g. what Malcolm X did for MLK Jr. Having a feel good experience of the Olympic Games is not enough. People on the ground must have some other tangible material benefits. The fact that Brazil banned slavery very late is hugely significant as indigenous people are victims of discrimination. Indigenous people in Brazil are only mentioned in terrorist/activist section of the Rio 2016 bid legacy document is significant and problematic.
Discussion focused on the potential for the Olympic Games to be hosted in the same city every Olympic cycle to reduce the political, environmental and negative impacts that arise with hosting the games. Economic degradation and sport mega-events go hand in hand and perhaps the narrative for IOC and the media should focus on human achievement of athletes not the often lofty legacy ideals and economic potential to be gained.
The IOC is not accountable to anyone and increased media will not make them more accountable. However perhaps concerned citizens can self-organise to help the IOC deal with the issues that they will continue to face regarding finding new cities to bid. People power was highlighted as an important factor as there is power in the way the public responds to the Olympic Games. Cities can say we don’t want to host the games if international federations are going to implement plans that have a negative impact on communities. Currently there are important changes happening at the IOC as they are rallying and condensing their power. The Olympics might not be a moneymaking opportunity but they create opportunities to shine a light on inequalities and provide a space for unheard voices to be heard which could contribute to changes in those communities.
Re: Workshop 2 – Transgender and Intersex Rights, Gender and Sport, Katrina Karkazis (Position Paper), Jessica Luther (Respondent), Michelle Moore (Chair) Terminology, context, and language setting: • The policies in question are about policing the category of woman differently to men. • These sports policies and governing bodies often operate in ways to police those categories. • They use specific markers over time whether women are qualified to compete in the women’s category from a biological standpoint. • The issue is about women (not just trans* or intersex issues), with links to race and imperialism (medical colonialism).
How do we create rules that are fair to individual athletes that enable them to compete meaningfully, but also protect the integrity of sport? People who are “natural-born” women may wonder how they would feel 3 lining up against transwomen. There is a common held view idea that transwomen are not really women. The policing of these boundaries are important. For intersex women, the question of unfair advantage hasn’t been proven scientifically. It’s also a women’s issue and an intersectional feminist issue. It’s no coincidence that conversation about these policies resurfaced around a period where track athletes from the Global South started to dominate. It creates an incentive to be targeting Global South women (particularly from Eastern Africa).
The IAAF has a long history of sex testing, since the 1920’s when women earned formal entry into the Olympic Games. Ever since, the IOC has been very concerned about women’s involvement. There are at least ten countries in the world that have sex testing, many with athletes who are privileged and white. But the ones in the media are from the Global South. There’s a much larger body of athletes who are being subjected to this policy outside of track and field, and whose bodies are not black. Karla Holloway (an ethicist) has an interesting point that privacy is the domain of the privileged. Black and brown bodies are not given or guaranteed privacy.
There is an assumption that trans athletes and intersex athletes are natural allies on this issue, which isn’t necessarily the case. There are trans athletes who have testified on behalf of the IAAF (for the hyperandrogenism policy) in part because there’s a way in which testosterone functions in all of these debates that has a different meaning in different settings and contexts. In 1932 sex testing of female track called athlete Stella Walsh took place. It was a call to test her, which may not have actually happened, but the call came from other female athletes. Questions arose around how to build solidarity among female athletes, especially when some of them are at the forefront of these calls for “fairness”? Are there efforts to mobilize and build alliances among women in support of other women?
Part of the issue is a widespread idea and misconception around gender and Testosterone and intersex and trans issues. Little education has happened on these issues for sportswomen. In the past British distance runner Paula Radcliffe testified on behalf of the IAAF; she believed that testosterone provided unfair advantage. So there are female athletes who believe testosterone is a ridiculous marker for performance, and then there are others who believe that it matters. There have been occasions when two athletes with higher-than typical testosterone levels, had their testosterone removed, but then were given therapeutic license to take testosterone, due to the health risks of having too-low testosterone levels. Other athletes have ended their careers because they did not want to have the surgeries. In the end, most of the cases are about women athletes with a slightly higher testosterone level. It’s not so much about trans* and intersex athletes.
Scientists have been showing for decades that there is no science behind these policies. They are based on ideological moves to preserve the gender order. It is difficult to change the ideological conversation, because it’s wrapped up in ideas about fairness, and women’s participation in sport as this is a space where women have been historically left out. Someone only has to call someone out. “You don’t look enough like a female,” and then someone will be tested. An approach was made to Serena Williams to be tested, seemingly the approach was made for no other reason than the fact that she was a dominant athlete and had supposed man-like qualities and black. Testing for testosterone is a human rights violation. This is an incredibly grueling and invasive procedure. Accusations were based on that she “could be male.” There’s an incredible amount of shaming in some of these countries in the Global South, where the essence of femininity is extremely important. The Dutee Chand case is significant for someone so young to speak up about this.
The Kristen Worley case is significant and overlaps with questions about what is considered outward feminity. Worley is a Canadian cyclist who transitioned in the late 90s from male to female and wanted to be an elite cyclist. She was eventually granted the TUE because she threatened to take her case to a human rights tribunal. What’s healthy for an individual in terms of testosterone levels may not be the same for every individual. Athlete voices are not often in the public as they are concerned about the public backlash. Although athletes are speaking out on this issue, yet it’s the researchers and the scientists who are often called upon as the experts.
4 What would the perfect rules be? If the goal is equity, rules could come from the value of inclusion, not exclusion, and creating a safe space where people are not medically forced into changing their bodies. This is not about sport policy driving medical intervention. This is about women being treated exactly the same way as men. Perhaps doping screening should be the only possible route to investigation, and if a woman has a higher than typical testosterone level, a carbon isotope is done and if found no doping has taken place the case is closed.
Discussion highlighted some recent media leading headlines: “Transgender MMA fighter brutalizes female opponent” “That’s not fair, she’s not a woman.” The media headlines highlight the fact that the athlete is trans. So that becomes the “reason” that she’s “dominant” or that the other athlete was injured. No such questions are raised about other athletes like Ronda Rousey, who’s also a powerful athlete. The assumption is it must be because she’s a “man.” The scrutinizing of people’s bodies and identities is wrong. Elevated testosterone is one thing, but a woman saying “she is not a woman,” is difficult because of the way sport is organized. A common sentiment held by many is men race men, women race women. Perhaps clarification around medical definitions and social constructs is needed. The problem lies in separating the two as the medical is related to the social. The easy answer is for athletes to self-identify and then the need for policies could be reduced. There should be doping rules for women that align with the men’s. However this issue should not be about creating more humane sex testing.
Trans and intersex athletes need the support to be able to talk about this. If the sport they’re representing (the “essence” of sport, fairness, community) is not there, how can they be expected to go out and face the world? That’s a tremendous burden for the athletes. Many female athletes do not trust the sports media to tell their stories. Furthermore how educated are athletes themselves? How can women be taught to be their own advocates and say, “She beat me because she was better?” It’s important to start with acceptance, even before education. It starts with accepting that transwomen are women. The best woman in her sport has always had fewer resources, less good coaches; they have had to work harder at their jobs because men have had better access. Women do call out other women, but perhaps this is because women have been afforded so little resources for so long.
In some ways it could be seen that the trans* policy has leapfrogged over the hyperandrogeny policy. One of the arguments for a hyperandrogenism policy is that you’d have men infiltrating women’s competitions. The irony with the new policy is that it’s gender self-identification with no surgical requirements. What you have instead is a recognition of the human rights of unnecessary medical intervention for trans* people, but these have not come to reshape the hyperandrogenism policies. The intersex policies need to catch up in some ways and the ideal is that there is no need for their existence.
Workshop Three Athletes as Activists: Lessons From Black Lives Matter and Beyond Piara Powar in discussion with Etan Thomas (pg 18-23) and Shireen Ahmed (pg 24-27)
Athletes have the power to be agents of social change, however the consequences of speaking out can have massive consequences. Athletes therefore need support to take a stand. Athlete activists of the past had little support when they chose to take political stands but over the course of time this changed and they became hugely popular e.g. Muhammad Ali. Athletes of today are facing what athletes in the past faced. When US athletes wore the “I can’t breathe” shirts in support of the Eric Garner protest, athletes faced a huge backlash with little support from others.
Etan talked about his own specific experience as an athlete activist, and the consequence of his actions opposing the Iraq war resulting in thousands of hate mail letters. It’s only more recently that people are against the war in Iraq that people are now coming out in support of him for stepping out and speaking up back then. Shireen echoed this with an example of the same kind of treatment given to a Black Muslim woman who wears a scarf who spoke out against Donald Trump – she received huge scrutiny and terrifying vitriol. Asking athletes, especially female athletes to speak out when the consequence is unforgiving hate from the public and media is problematic.
With this kind of activism comes huge responsibility comes which could be seen as a burden for athletes. Etan responded that he sees it as a privilege that gives him access to the media that allows him to speak 5 for those who don’t have the same access. Shireen made the point that with the rise of social media, this has changed as athletes now have direct access to media outlets. However it can be difficult for athletes to get their message across to mainstream media. A suggestion was made that media should create space for those activist voices.
Discussion then focused on the current generation of black athletes who are overtly, or silently, supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. The Missouri football teams activism sparked by the overt racism on campus was particularly powerful. College football players hold power because they make huge sums of money for colleges. When the players threatened to go on strike if Donald Sterling wasn’t removed the players’ demands were met. The player activism had a direct impact because of the potential damaging financial consequences for the Missouri football team. Consequences for athlete activism are real and threatening to the livelihoods of athletes. Athletes can be sanctioned, scholarships revoked, fired and suspended for speaking out. It could therefore be seen as unfair and unreasonable to ask athletes to speak out. When there is a collective group of athletes and coaches coming together there is more likelihood for change as there is greater power and safety in numbers. Female athletes are often alone in this struggle and as individuals and generally don’t have any collective power.
There is a lack of education for athletes to talk consciously about political issues. One of the potential risks for athletes when making a political stance is reputational damage. Athletes have tremendous power and when they do find their voice, often there is no systematic way to use it to bring about systematic change. An example was given of a high school basketball player, identifiable as a Black Muslim woman unable to play professionally due to existing Hijab FIBA ban. However after having been silent on the issue for some time she finally spoke out because of the rise in Islamophobia. It took years for her to build up the courage to speak up.
It is commonplace for athletes behind closed doors in the locker rooms to have political debates. Basketball Wizard teammates would often congratulate Etan for speaking out. Even in the English the Premier league football players talk about politics in the locker rooms. Support for athletes is paramount and it’s especially important to garner support from different ethnic communities so that communities can support each other. e.g. the solidarity between #BlackLivesMatter and Palestinian activists. There is a potential danger that people with privilege start directing athletes on their activism. Survivors of sexual assault need to be supported and can’t be expected them to come out and speak up because it can be extremely triggering. Perhaps there is a need for a potential organisation of some kind to connect athletes to the resources they need.
Further questions arose around solidarity - Why is it that black players must take on the issue of racism on their own? Why is it that white players don’t feel the need to be good allies and face this issue as well? There was some discussion around the lack of existing meaningful media training for athletes. Those in power don’t want athletes to have a real discussion, the expectation is that athletes either agree with public opinion or say nothing. The type of media training on offer for athletes is media suppression. Support for athletes should focus on training athletes to develop their confidence to speak up and to defend against hostile reporters.
To turn athlete activists into movements the media has a role to play to highlight the athletes and support them. Athletes usually speak out from a space of life experience. There is a place for everyone to keep pushing for increased sports activism. Support must be in place to help amplify the protests. There is a need to mobilize and connect more people and organisations external to sport with athlete activists to create strong allies. This will help to bridge the gap between athletes and broader societal movements.
This summary is a record of the workshop discussion and is written and produced by Michelle Moore with transcription support from University of Texas students.
6
Jules Boykoff • The Politics of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games The Politics and Potential of Sport Workshop • University of Texas at Austin 10 March 2016
The 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro kick off in less than five months. In this position paper, I attempt to map out the politics that are taking shape in the Olympic city. The paper draws from my on-the- ground work in Rio—I lived there from August through December 2015—as well as my research and writing on the political history of the Olympic Games.
I proceed under two assumptions that I wish to make clear from the outset. The first comes from geographer and social scientist David Harvey who writes, “The politics of capitalism are affected by the perpetual need to find profitable terrains for capital surplus production and absorption. In this the capitalist faces a number of obstacles to continuous and trouble-free expansion.”1 As the global economy shimmies and stutters, the Olympics have emerged as a site where surplus capital can be sopped up for the benefit of well-connected political and economic elites in the host city. Through geographical expansion, capitalists can stave off short-term crisis. Harvey calls this “the spatial fix” whereby “capitalism buys time for itself out of the space it conquers.”2 In the context of the Olympics, the state functions as a key player in this process by proffering public-private partnerships where the state—which is to say the taxpayer—shoulders both the risk and the bulk of the tab while private entities lurk to scoop up any rewards to be had. Elsewhere I have called this “celebration capitalism.”3 We are seeing celebration capitalism in Technicolor in Rio de Janeiro.
My second assumption arrives from sociologist Ben Carrington who suggests, “Sport is read as a contested terrain wherein competing ideologies of domination and resistance can be traced. Nothing is guaranteed in terms of political outcomes.”4 In Rio, the political-economic deck is stacked, but that doesn’t mean activists are shying away from the fight. Numerous protest groups and NGOs are organizing to challenge the Olympic machine and its tendency to steamroll everyday citizens in the city. Groups gathering under the banner of the Comitê Popular da Copa do Mundo e das Olimpíadas (Popular Committee for the World Cup and Olympics) have organized protests and launched detailed research dossiers. The NGO Catalytic Communities has created Rio On Watch, a vital watchdog that tracks human-rights violations in favelas across the metropolis.
★
When Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff appeared at the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee’s headquarters brandishing a plaque with the “10 Commandments of the Rio 2016 Games,” the cameras dutifully snapped and flashed. The plaque was a gift from Eduardo Paes, the beer-quaffing, English-speaking, mediagenic mayor of Rio, a politician well versed in the art of the photo-op.5 But with the Games opening soon—on 5 August 2016—many of the “commandments” ring painfully hollow.
This might make Rousseff and Paes Olympic sinners. But as the Games approach, there are also real winners: well-positioned real-estate moguls, construction magnates, and perhaps Paes himself. Meanwhile, everyday Rio residents are left with a heap of shattered promises. Some are even being forcibly displaced to make way for the Games. These days, very few Cariocas believe the Olympian hype. In 2011, 63% in Rio thought that sports mega-events like the Olympics and 2014 World Cup would bring the city great benefits. By the end of 2015, only 27% shared that perception.6
As with much Olympics-induced public relations, the “10 Commandments” ripple with vapid prattle—one vows to “Deliver a better city after the Games,” whatever that means. But some “commandments” are quite
1 David Harvey, Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution (London and New York: Verso, 2013), 5-6. 2 David Harvey, Spaces of Capital: Toward a Critical Geography (New York: Routledge, 2001), 338. 3 Jules Boykoff, Celebration Capitalism and the Olympic Games (London and New York: Routledge, 2013). 4 Ben Carrington, Race, Sport and Politics (London: Sage, 2010), 27, emphasis added 5 “Dilma Rousseff presents the ‘10 Commandments’ of the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games,” Rio 2016, 10 November 2015. 6 Marco Aurélio Canônico, “Desistindo do Rio,” Folha de São Paulo, 10 January 2015. 7 specific, such as “Use private money for the largest part of the costs.” Because in recent years the Olympics have been unmasked as a fiscal boondoggle, five-ring honchos in Rio assert at every opportunity that taxpayer money covers less than half of the overall Games costs, while private interests pay the rest. Mayor Paes unswervingly rehearses the assertion that private sources are paying for two thirds of the Rio Olympics bill.7
But this statistic is extremely misleading. It fails to consider the quiet ways that Rio 2016 shifts public resources into private hands, ginning up monster profits for impresarios with connections. For starters, Rio 2016 brings enormous tax breaks. One study found that Olympic tax exemptions would be around four times higher than Brazil’s World Cup, where tax breaks were nearly $250 million.8 Plus, public banks in Brazil are taking on speculative business risks to backstop Olympic projects.9 Also, local authorities have used the Olympics as a smokescreen to bestow valuable public land to developers at bargain-basement prices.
Nowhere was the transfer of public wealth into private hands more brazen than in the construction of the Rio 2016 golf course. The Rio Olympics mark the return of golf to the Games, after a 112-year hiatus. The metropolis already has two elite golf courses that have staged major tournaments, as touted in Rio’s original Olympic bid. One of them could have been renovated to meet the Olympic standard. But in an audacious maneuver Mayor Paes located golf closer to the Olympic complex in Barra da Tijuca, a wealthy western suburb, even if that meant plunking the course inside Marapendi Nature Reserve, home to numerous threatened species like a rare tree iguana and the Fluminense swallowtail butterfly.10
In doing so, Paes teed up a staggering deal for billionaire developer Pasquale Mauro. As long as Mauro paid the bill for the golf course—between $20 and $30 million—he’d also win a contract to build 140 luxury apartments around it. These units start at $2 million, with penthouse condominiums pushing upwards of $6 million.11 It doesn’t take a math whiz to calculate this multi-million dollar sweetheart deal, gift-wrapped by City Hall. All this makes it harder and harder to argue with Christopher Gaffney, urban geographer and senior urban planning research fellow at the University of Zürich, who wrote, “The flaccid Olympic mantras, superstar pedestal climbers, stadiums, and legacy promises are mere distractions from the realpolitik of urban development.”12
If the Olympics are all about real estate, Exhibit B has to be the Olympic Village. Built by Brazilian construction behemoth Carvalho Hosken, the Village will be converted after the Games into a luxury- housing complex called “Ilha Pura” (“Pure Island”). “Ilha Pura” isn’t even an actual, geophysical island. As if parodying the out-of-touch one-percenter, Carlos Carvalho—founder of Carvalho Hosken and campaign donor to Mayor Paes—explained to the Guardian that it was, however, meant to be a social island. He said, he wanted to create, “a city of the elite, of good taste…For this reason, it needed to be noble housing, not housing for the poor.”13 (Perhaps the gods of real-estate karma decided enough was enough—as of February 2015, only 300 of more than 3,600 apartments at “Ilha Pura” had been sold.)14
Rio’s poor were actually supposed to benefit from the Games. One ‘commandment’ vowed to “Prioritise the most needy areas and the poorest part of the population.” But Rio authorities are acting as if “prioritise” means “prioritise for eviction.” Since the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded Rio the Games
7 Joe Leahy, “Rio Feels Political Heat Over Olympics,” Financial Times, 11 November 2015. 8 Orlando Alves Santos Junior and Caio G.R. Lima, ‘Impactos Econômicos dos Megaeventos no Brasil: Investimento Público, Participação Privada e Difusão do Empreendedorismo Urbano Neoliberal,’ in O.A. Santos Junior, C. Gaffney, and L.C.Q. Ribeiro (eds.), Brasil: Os Impactos Da Copa Do Mundo 2014 e Das Olimpíadas 2016, Rio de Janeiro: Observatório Das Metrópoles, 2015, 71; Kelly Phillips Erb, “World Cup Mania: Figuring Out FIFA, Soccer, and Tax,” Forbes, 16 June 2014. 9 Renato Cinco, “Pedaladas Olímpicas,” O Globo, 11 November 2015, 19. 10 Juliana Barbassa, Dancing with the Devil in the City of God: Rio on the Brink (New York: Touchstone, 2015), 154-155; Bruce Douglas, “Rio 2016: Occupy Takes Swing at Olympic Golf Course,” Guardian, 25 February 2015. 11 Stephen Wade, “2016 Athletes’ Village Set to Become Luxury Housing,” AP, 21 March 2015. 12 Christopher Gaffney, “Global Parties, Galactic Hangovers: Brazil’s Mega Event Dystopia,” Los Angeles Review of Books, 1 October 2014. 13 Jonathan Watts, “The Rio Property Developer Hoping for a $1bn Olympic Legacy of His Own,” Guardian, 4 August 2015. 14 Sabrina Valle and David Biller, “Rio Mayor Says Olympic Condos a Hard Sell in Weak Housing Market,” Bloomberg, 19 Feb. 2016. 8 back in 2009, around 77,000 Cariocas have been displaced.15 “The number is likely much higher, since these are official statistics that traditionally undercount favela residents in all aspects of data collection, much less eviction,” Theresa Williamson told me. Williamson is the founder of Catalytic Communities, the aforementioned Rio-based NGO that monitors human-rights issues in favelas. She added that “Without the pretext of the Olympic deadline, very few of the evictions undertaken by the Paes administration would have been possible… Thanks to the state of exception created by the Games, a small, insular group of people close to the mayor have been making broad decisions during the pre-Olympic period.”
Vila Autódromo, a small, working-class favela on the edge of the Olympic Park, is one community that has found itself in front of the Olympic steamroller. As Rio stretched westward in the 1990s, a young deputy mayor of Barra da Tijuca by the name of Eduardo Paes alleged the favela was causing environmental and aesthetic damage that required demolition. He has led the charge to expel every last resident of Vila Autódromo. In June 2015, efforts by the police to forcibly evict residents even turned violent.16
Recently the psychological seesaw has verged on psychological warfare. Authorities have cut the favela’s water and electricity. Residents have experienced out-of-the-blue “lightning evictions” carried out by the Municipal Guard. Even the Tropa de Choque do Rio (Rio’s Shock Troops) has played a part, intimidating locals and erecting a wall so obtrusive it would make Donald Trump proud.17 Meanwhile, on the other side of fence, Rio Mais, the construction consortium building the Olympic Park, cranks away. This is not what Sharon Zukin dubs “a model of pacification by cappuccino.”18 No, this is brass-knuckle dispossession. As Harvey notes, “The economy of dispossession of vulnerable populations is as active as it is perpetual.” 19 We are absolutely seeing this dynamic in Rio de Janeiro ahead of the Olympics Games.
Larissa Lacerda, an organizer with the Popular Committee for the World Cup and Olympics in Rio de Janeiro who has worked closely with residents in Vila Autódromo, told me, “The Municipal Guard has protected the interests of the Rio Mais consortium against the interests of the population.” Although Vila Autódromo has been decimated, some families have refused financial compensation and are determined to stay in their homes. Lacerda said, “Cruelty in Vila Autódromo has increased day by day, with City Hall doing everything it can to make life there unbearable. Yet a group of residents continues the resistance.”
In late November 2015, I attended a Cultural Festival in Vila Autódromo that doubled as a solidarity rally. A large group—comprised of residents as well as busloads of community allies who traveled from other parts of Rio—assembled at the community’s cultural center, for music, information-sharing, food, and fun.
But even amid the good cheer, latent frustration bubbled up. Throughout Vila Autódromo slogans were scrawled in spraypaint on the standing walls of demolished homes and on the white wall separating the community from the Olympic zone. Wending through the rubble afforded an appreciation of the community’s grit and creativity in the face of peril. Someone had written “Paes Sem Amor” (“Paes Without Love”) on the wall that separates the community from the Olympic construction zone: a play on the phrase “Paz e Amor” (“Peace and Love”). Another took aim at a certain construction baron with a penchant for social stratification: “Carlos Carvalho, Não Somos Pobre / Você Sim é Pobre” (“We Are Not Poor / Rather, You Are Poor”).
But the predominant slogan around the favela was “Lava Jato Olímpico,” a reference to the widespread corruption scandal gripping Brazil’s political class by the gullet. The fiasco has, quite understandably, gobbled up the media’s collective attention. One side effect is that Operação Lava Jato has deflected attention from the Olympic build-up and all its deficiencies.
15 Cerianne Robertson, “Popular Committee Launches Final Human Rights Violations Dossier Ahead of Rio 2016 ‘Exclusion Games’,” Rio On Watch, 10 December 2015. 16 Jonathan Watts, “Forced Evictions in Rio Favela for 2016 Olympics Trigger Violent Clashes,” Guardian, 3 June 2015. 17 Cerianne Robertson and Clare Huggins, “Lightning Evictions Return to Vila Autódromo Next Door to #Rio2016,” Rio On Watch, 23 October 2015; David Robertson, “Vila Autódromo on the Brink of Violence? Community Awakens to Shock Police and Wall,” Rio On Watch, 15 January 2016. 18 Sharon Zukin, The Cultures of Cities (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1995), 28. 19 David Harvey, Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution (London and New York: Verso, 2013), 57.
9
In a way, the double-whammy of political and economic crisis has been a blessing for Olympic organizers, allowing their logistical hiccups to fly under the public radar. But as the Games draw closer, more people are pointing out the stark fact that billions are being spent on the Olympics at the same time that social services in Rio are being slashed. Some hospitals have shuttered to everyone except those experiencing extreme emergencies.20 Public spending reveals priorities and values. With the Rio Olympics, it’s hard not to see who is being prioritized and valued and who’s not.
If Rio 2016 runs smoothly, Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes may be able use his platform as five-ring kingpin to catapult to higher office. Eduardo Cunha, the scandal-wracked Speaker of the lower house of Congress who was recently found to have millions squirreled away in Swiss bank accounts, has anointed Paes as his favored candidate for the 2018 Brazilian presidential election.21
★
The Olympic Games inevitably feature winners and losers on the track, in the pool, and on the basketball court. But Rio 2016 Olympic luminaries vowed to make everyday Cariocas into winners as well. “Leave a legacy for the entire population of the city,” chirps one “commandment.” Olympic organizers use the term “legacy” as verbal kryptonite to ward off critics of all stripes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the political history of the Olympics, “legacy” has become a hollowed out term that all too often means very little. One particularly poignant legacy promise that Olympic honchos made in Rio relates to the environment. The Rio 2016 candidature file, submitted to the IOC in 2009, made “environmental legacy” a primary selling point. In order to chalk up public support (the IOC reviews polling numbers of aspiring host cities) Rio 2016 bidders listed more than twenty-five legacies in its bid, and around half of them were directly or indirectly related to environmental issues.22 Rio boosters adopted the motto “Green Games for a Blue Planet.” In describing their vision and legacy plans, they wrote that the Games would “accelerate the implementation, and in some cases the initiation, of major sustainability projects, including those related to environmentally sensitive sites, air quality and waterways.”23 For some cariocas all this brought on a strong sense of mega-event déjà vu: when Rio hosted the Pan-American Games in 2007, promoters promised water cleanup and improved living conditions. However, the waterways were not cleaned up and organizers made the mistake of constructing the athlete village on ecologically sensitive peat land.24
For Rio 2016, bidders promised to plant 24 million trees before the Games commenced in order to offset carbon emissions.25 The Secretary for the Environment for the State of Rio de Janeiro proceeded to raise the stakes in 2012, promising 34 million trees. However, by 2014, the official “Rio 2016 Sustainability Report” conspicuously neglected to mention tree-planting progress. This did not stop Rio organizers from launching an “Embrace Sustainability” program; Dow—the “official chemistry company of the Olympic Games”—became the first sponsor. In May 2015, Brazil’s State Secretary for the Environment admitted that fewer than 6 million saplings had been planted. On that pace, Rio 2016 would only plant around 8 million trees by the time the Games opened, far fewer than the original promise.26
20 Matt Sandy, “Olympic Host State Faces Financial Crisis As Games Approach,” Time Magazine, 8 January 2016. 21 Anthony Boadle and John Miller, “Brazil Lower House Speaker Under Pressure over Swiss Accounts,” Reuters, 2 October 2015. 22 Demian Garcia Castro, Christopher Gaffney, Patrícia Ramos Novaes, Juciano Martins Rodrigues, Carolina Pereira dos Santos, and Orlando Alves dos Santos Junior, Rio de Janeiro: Os Impactos da Copa do Mundo 2014 e das Olimpíadas 2016 (Rio de Janeiro: Observatório das Metrópoles—IPPUR/UFRJ, 2015), 14-15. 23 Rio 2016, “Candidature File for Rio de Janeiro to Host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Volume 1-3,” 2009. See Vol. 1, 2009, 95, 21. 24 Martin Curi, Jorge Knijnik, and Gilmar Mascarenhas, “The Pan American Games in Rio de Janeiro 2007: Consequences of a Sport Mega- Event in a BRIC Country,” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46 (2) 2011: 140-156. 25 Rio 2016, Vol. 1, 2009, 33. 26 See: Rio 2016 Organizing Committee, “Rio 2016 and Dow to Implement Most Comprehensive Carbon Programme in Olympic Games History,” 23 September 2014, http://www.rio2016.com/en/news/rio-2016-and-dow-to-implement-most-comprehensive-carbon-programme-in- olympic-games-history; Vinicius Konchinski, “RJ Prometeu 34 Milhões de Árvores para Rio-2016. Deve Plantar 8 Milhões,” UOL, 22 May 2015, http://olimpiadas.uol.com.br/noticias/2015/05/22/rj-prometeu-plantar-34-mi-de-arvores-para-rio-2016-deve-plantar-8-mi.htm 10 Rio’s waterways were supposed to be cleaned up for the Olympics. Rio 2016 officials pledged to clean up Guanabara Bay, host of the sailing event, and the Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas, slated to host rowing as well as some canoeing and kayaking events. The bid stated that two sanitation upgrade systems—one installed at Barra-Jacarepaguá in western Rio and the other at Guanabara Bay—would “result in more than 80% of overall sewage collected and treated by 2016.” However, Luiz Fernando Pezão, the Governor of the State of Rio de Janeiro, pushed back the goal for Guanabara Bay to 2035.27 Each day around 169,000 gallons (640 million liters) of raw sewage gurgles into the Bay.28
In July 2015, Associated Press produced a blockbuster investigative report in conjunction with Brazilian virologist Fernando Spilki of Feevale University that determined every Olympic water venue unsafe. Spilki scientific testing found astronomical levels of human waste in the water that contributed to “dangerously high levels of viruses and bacteria.” Rio residents put their health at risk. So did athletes who would participate at the Games. Everyone was susceptible to “explosive diarrhea, violent vomiting, respiratory trouble and other illnesses.” Ingesting three teaspoons of the polluted water meant a 99 percent chance of infection by virus, although that did not necessarily mean that individual would fall ill.29
In December 2015, AP released results from a second round of testing, which found the Olympic venues were “as rife with pathogens far offshore as they are nearer land.” This had direct implications for Olympic athletes: the water in which they would compete—even if far from the polluted shoreline—would not be diluted of dangerous pathogens. AP found no improvement from the tests it ran in July where virus-inducing human sewage was found “at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” The lack of progress did not bode well for significant improvement prior to the Olympic Games. Plus, Rio organizers and the IOC refused to carry out viral testing for athletes, citing World Health Organization standards that only required bacterial testing for water quality. Rio’s Olympic venues sometimes fell within the safe range for fecal bacterial levels even while viral contamination spiked to astronomical levels.30
While all this might cause problems for athletes, it is even more galling for everyday Rio residents who will continue to live in such dangerous conditions long after Olympic participants have jetted home. They will not find solace in the comments of IOC Executive Director Christophe Dubi who said, “Thanks to the games, the level of awareness regarding the bay has been raised to unprecedented levels, which is a good thing.”31 Mario Andrada, spokesperson for the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee echoed Dubi when he said in February 2016 that even though the water cleanup goals for Guanabara Bay would not be met, “we finally got something that the bay has been missing for generations, which is public will for the cleaning.”32 Numerous Rio residents I spoke with were totally offended by such remarks—as if they were previously unaware of Rio’s water woes. Even Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes publicly stated that Rio’s sewage-infested waters were “a missed opportunity” though he also claimed it was “not an Olympic issue” despite the fact that cleaning the waters was an Olympic promise.33
★
Political scientist John Manley has written that “Under capitalism…some ideas are more free and equal than others.”34 This has long been the case with the political-economics of the Olympic Games. In the past, IOC luminaries could trot out a one-size-fits-all batch of promises about Olympics-induced upticks in tourism, jobs, and economic growth. But in recent years these rainbow-and-unicorn assurances have been debunked; history and research have caught up with Olympic myth-making. Even Mitt Romney, the former
27 Rio 2016, Vol. 1, 2009, 97; Jenny Barchfield, “Away from Olympics, Sewage Blights Vast Swaths of Rio.” Associated Press, 10 September 2015. 28 Steven Eisenhammer, “Crack Team Fights to Clean Rio’s Polluted Bay Before Olympics,” Reuters, 18 December 2015. 29 Brad Brooks and Jenny Barchfield, “Olympic Teams to Swim, Boat in Rio’s Filth,” Associated Press, 30 July 2015. 30 Brad Brooks, “AP Test: Rio Olympic Water Badly Polluted, Even Far Offshore,” Associated Press, 2 December 2015. 31 Jenny Barchfield, “IOC Rules Out Viral Testing of Rio’s Olympic Waters,” Associated Press, 12 August 2015. 32 Bonnie D. Ford, “The Promise Rio Couldn’t Keep.” ESPN Outside the Lines, 18 February 2015. 33 “Rio Mayor: Great Change Happening Because of Olympics,” ESPN, 18 February 2016, www.espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14794223 34 John Manley, “Neo-Pluralism: A Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II,” American Political Science Review (1983): 368-383. Q at 375. 11 Massachusetts Governor who helped nudge the scandal-wracked 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics across the finish line, cautioned of the Games, “It’s really not a money-making opportunity.”35 Romney’s candor points up a remarkable shift in the way we’ve come to understand sports mega-events like the Olympics over the past decade. Now is the time to think big, while the general public is more aware than ever of the Olympics’ downside and while IOC President Thomas Bach appears to be open to change. Carrington is right: “Nothing is guaranteed in terms of political outcomes.” And for those of us who have been pushing the Olympic Movement to change, that’s pretty exciting.
35 J. Clarke, “Mitt Romney Backs Boston Olympics But Warns It Won’t Make Money,” Forbes, 1 November 2013. 12
Transgender and Intersex Rights, Gender and Sport The Politics and Potential of Sport UT Austin March 10, 2016
Katrina Karkazis
Introduction
Sport is among the worst sites for institutionalized discrimination of trans and intersex athletes because of the taken-for-granted organization of sport into the binary categories of men and women. In order to have ‘fair competitions’ or a ‘level playing field’ in sport, the thinking goes, there must be criteria and regulations regarding sex determination for the purposes of eligibility. As Sarah Teetzel has noted, “the division of men’s and women’s sport rest not on logical I’m pragmatic considerations for each sport, but instead he relies on outdated and binary modes of thinking that call for the complete and absolute separation I’m women and men in the majority of athletic pursuits (Teetzel 2006). People deemed not to fit neatly within the constructs of male and female, either due to their biology (that is, intersex) or to their gender identity and expression (broadly understood as trans), cause political, organizational and ontological problems for this sport system. If you feel I might be overstating the hegemony of these categories and the concomitant and perceived need for ways of policing their boundaries in sport, try suggesting that we do away with either sex determination or sex-segregation and see what happens.
Later I am going to make an argument that in order to do justice to trans and intersex participation in sport we need to discuss them separately because transphobia and intersexphobia work as different forms of oppression and discrimination in sport resulting in policies that pay allegiance these phobias. But, for now, they are linked in one very critical way: the ways in which binary gender norms are enshrined in deeply problematic policies that seek to manage trans and intersex bodies. What I want to do today is talk about some various policies and recent change, where we are now, where we need to go.
The Stockholm Consensus
In October 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) convened a group in Stockholm, Sweden to “discuss and issue recommendations on the participation of individuals who have undergone sex reassignment (male to female and converse) in sport.” In what became known as the Stockholm Consensus, the IOC introduced a policy that was, on the surface, meant to “allow” transsexual individuals to compete (although with severe requirements) but was really designed to stop gender non-normative athletes from competing and transwomen from “cheating” (Cavanagh & Sykes, 2006).
The group advised that so-called transsexual people be eligible for female or male competition as long as they had satisfied three criteria: had legal recognition of their sex; has undergone genital surgery and oophorectomy or gonadectomy; and started so-called post-operative hormone therapy at least two years previously.
This policy brought a new era of transphobia into sports, as many other sporting organizations quickly, and uncritically, adopted this as a model policy for ‘transgender participation’. Their recommendations were soon adopted by many governing bodies. There is a lot here that’s bad including the requirement for genital surgery.
The IOC prioritized ‘male to female’ trans people in this policy and their rationale is telling: to “eliminate any sex-related advantages.” Thus something important took place in this policy specifically around the 2-year hormone requirement: the IOC sealed the relationship between testosterone and athletic performance in policy. This link set the stage for the regulations that would come to replace decades of so-called sex testing policies for women by limiting natural testosterone levels for the women’s category. It’s the 13 ostensible and scientific Trojan horse through which sexism, discrimination, intersex and transphobia sneak in.
The Hyperandrogenism Policies
In 2011 and 2012, respectively, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted controversial policies that regulate levels of natural T in women athletes. The IAAF policy sets a ceiling for women of 10 nmol/liter in blood, which it identifies as “within the normal male range,” whereas the IOC policy targets levels “within the male range.” Women with high natural T, according to the IAAF, have an unfair advantage over women with lower natural levels. Unless they are androgen resistant, women must lower their T in order to continue competing, which would require surgery or antiandrogens.
This policy echoes the idea T provides some women with unfair advantage. As it turns out, however, the policy is such that it is primarily targeted at intersex women who are born such that they naturally produce higher levels of T. But the anxiety around sex atypical bodies is the primary driver of this policy. The IAAF policy, for example, stated
“there are rare cases of young females competing in Athletics today who are affected by hyperandrogenism which, if the condition remains undiagnosed or neglected, can pose a risk to health. Despite the rarity of such cases, their emergence from time to time at the highest level of women’s competition in Athletics has proved to be controversial since the individuals concerned often display masculine traits and have an uncommon athletic capacity in relation to their fellow female competitors” (IAF 2011)
The IOC policy notes that
“competitions…are conducted separately for men and women (with the exception of certain events). Human biology, however, allows for forms of intermediate levels between the conventional categories of male and female, sometimes referred to as intersex. Usually, intersex athletes can be placed in the male or female group on the basis of their legal sex. However, as explained below, intersex female athletes with elevated androgen production give rise to a particular concern in the context of competitive sports” (IOC 2012)
The concern is ostensibly unfair advantage. However, a few pages later the policy encourages this chilling statement for each National Olympic Committee: to “actively investigate any perceived deviation in sex characteristics” (IOC 2012)
In 2014, teen Indian sprinter Dutee Chand was barred from competition under the IAAF policy. Appealing her exclusion to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland—the Supreme Court of Sport—Chand told the Indian Express “At every level of my life … I have competed the way I am. I’ve been told the hormonal issue with me is natural so that’s why we have decided [to appeal]” (5). Her appeal was the first formal challenge to the policy.
CAS suspended the policy arguing it was inherently discriminatory and created a category within a category.
The IAAF has not discharged its onus of establishing that the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are necessary and proportionate to pursue the legitimate objective of organising competitive female athletics to ensure fairness in athletic competition. Specifically, the IAAF has not provided sufficient scientific evidence about the quantitative relationship between enhanced testosterone levels and improved athletic performance in hyperandrogenic athletes. In the absence of such evidence, the Panel is unable to conclude that hyperandrogenic female athletes may enjoy such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category.
14
The Hormonal Olympics
Fast forward to 2015 when the IOC revisited the Stockholm Policy and releases a new Consensus Statement. This policy largely follows that of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which organizes competition in 23 sports at over 1,000 colleges and universities in the United States. The IOC no long requires genital or gonadal surgery or the legal recognition of a player's transitioned sex in order for trans athletes to participate in the category that matches their identity. They do require a declared gender identity and this declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
These are without question improvements on the prior policy. But they remain troubling with regard to hormones. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category if the athlete keeps her total T level below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition and then must remain below 10 throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
The 10nmol/L T level that unites the two policies with respect to eligibility in the women’s category creates the illusion that men’s and women’s T levels separate at 10. But the level is arbitrary: there are women with T levels above 10 and men with T levels below T. Alignment of new policies reduces “maleness" to T level, but only in the women’s category. Make women hormonally similar but don't do that within the men’s category: men can have a T level of 8 or 35 and still compete in the men’s category.
Silences and What’s Left Out
These policies rely heavily on scientized and biomedical perspectives regarding trans and intersex. Most horrifying is that trans and intersex athletes are required to comply with a very specific set of parameters for them to be recognized by various governing bodies. In order for inclusion to occur, these athletes are required to submit themselves to the scrutiny, surveillance, and even recommendations of medical interventions by sports governing bodies. The policies are driven by and bolster the idea that trans and intersex women are not “real women” unless they have been tested, documented, had their privacy invaded and, most often, as long as they are not highly successful.
The new policies engage involve a sleight-of-hand: It appears as though a “neutral” bodily fact (testosterone level) is the exclusive basis for comparing athlete’s qualifications to compete without interrogating the underlying racial-colonial histories and logics around gender. Although medical knowledge proclaims to be ‘neutral’, it is imbued with racialized and gender normative ideas about bodies and appropriate gender expression.
But the women they impact is not neutral. Since this new policy plays out in the arena not just of sports, but of medical diagnosis and compulsory (often medically unnecessary) “treatment,” Karla Holloway’s notion of “predictable failures” is useful. Holloway argues that “privacy” is implicitly reserved for socially-privileged groups (male, white, heterosexual), and that living outside these interlocking privileges means inhabiting a body that is always, to some extent, “public” and available for scrutiny, probing, and coercion in ways that fly under the radar of institutions and individuals doing the looking. I have characterized this policy as medical colonialism because it purports be beneficent and imposes ideas about appropriate bodies on primarily women from the Global South.
These policies are especially pernicious because they are said to be for the health of athletes. And yet the interventions they require—and this marks the first time such interventions were recommended for women athletes—are especially harmful. Approaching hyperandrogenism as a sports problem raises ethical concerns about designating possibly benign physical variation as “unhealthy,” resulting in potentially unnecessary medicosurgical intervention and possible neglect of the long term consequences of interventions.
We need to ask how is inclusion achieved if participation in sport is contingent on medical intervention and 15 conforming. And how is this a form of violence—in and of itself? Further, inclusion is premised on willingness to adhere to a Western understanding of gender, and gender variance such that they are to understand their bodies as inherently wrong and in need of correction.
The policymaking process is imbued with power resulting in policies we see. Who is developing the policy for whom? Who is targeted? Who is privileged? Who is punished? There are several things to consider here. These meetings have always been closed door, private, by-invitation, and opaque. Those making policy primarily white and northern European. Dominated by medical doctors. In those instances where there are representatives from the groups affected, this too has been problematic. There is never anyone from the Global South. Yet in the cases I know that have been investigated under the HA policy, all of the women have been brown or black women from the Global South.
There is another tension to note in latest iteration and CAS: transwomen who are primarily white middle class have argued for policies that primarily affects women from Global South. Such a difference in social position. White western rans women saying treat everyone the same. All good but not for global south women.
They also provide a sealed and self confident narrative of the important issues in the trans and HA, one that is bereft of the lived realities of intersex and trans people as well as those from less resourced nations.
This may explain how although hormonally lumped, intersex and trans are viewed and treated very differently in these policies. Let me give you two examples. The CS on trans says, “It is necessary to ensure insofar as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition.” Never has the inclusion of intersex athletes been a goal; rather the policies over decades are driven by exclusion and, more recently, by normalization.
As a second example, the CS on trans notes that “To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre- condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights.” The inconsistency here is mind blowing especially given the recent explosion of HR statements on intersex over the last five years.
Where do we go from here?
The lens with which we approach trans and intersex inclusion in sport shape not only what we understand the issue to be, but our solutions. I’ve noted already the dominance of a medicalized and scientized approach to trans and intersex participation at the elite level. But this view also permeates the collegiate level and even the high school level in some districts. The NCAA policy, for example, also requires one year of hormonal interventions for athletes.
The reversion to science as the only arbiter of trans and intersex participation in sport is but one force that results in discriminatory policies and practices. Whether elite or local, these policies engage a labyrinth of intersecting, historical oppressions around, for example, sex, gender expression, race, and nation. As a result, trans and intersex athletes are excluded from sports at all levels. At least 9 states require either a birth certificate and/or genital surgery and hormonal interventions (and a wait period) for participation, which means a trans* athlete has little chance of participating while in school. Many K-12 and recreational leagues do not offer any protections against discrimination or direction for trans inclusion, leaving these issues to the whim of confused coaches and parents. Alarmingly, there has been a wave of anti-trans bills introduced across the country that would ban young trans athletes from using locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Some of these bills even go so far as to keep trans youth off sports teams altogether.
Policy-makers at the elite level do not – and never have – begun from a place of treating trans and intersex people as fully human and reckoning with them in nonreductive terms. The phobias that give rise to the kinds of policies I’ve spoken about is so thoroughly normalized so as to seem unremarkable. So it takes conscious willed effort not to reproduce sexism, racism and colonialist ideologies in sports policies that regulate the eligibility of trans and intersex athletes. Our task is to to name the histories and systems of interlocking oppression at work in trans or intersex policies. Without this effort, we risk repeating the sexist, 16 heterosexist, racist and colonialist assumptions of prior policies, without recognizing them as such. We must ensure that sport is a safe and supportive space for all athletes, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, and develop approaches that prioritize equity and social justice.
References Cavanagh, S. & Sykes, H. 2006. Transsexual bodies at the Olympics: The International Olympic Committee’s policy on Transsexual Athletes at the 2004 Summer Games. Body and Society, 12(3), 75-102.
International Association of Athletics Federations. 2011. IAAF regulations governing eligibility of females with hyperandrogenism to compete in women’s competitions. www.iaaf. org/about-iaaf/documents/medical.
International Olympic Committee. 2004. Statement of the Stockholm consensus on sex reassignment in sports. 2004. http://www.olympic.org/documents/reports/en/en_report_905.pdf
International Olympic Committee. 2012/2014. IOC regulations on female hyperandrogenism. www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/IOCRegulations- on-Female-Hyperandrogenism.pdf. Teetzel, S. 2006. Equality, Equity and Inclusion: Issues in Women and Transgender Athletes' Participation in the Olympics. In Cultural Imperialism in Action: Critiques in the Global Olympic Trust. Eighth International Symposium for Olympic Research. http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR2006a.pdf
17
ATHLETES AS ACTIVISTS
An Open Letter to Charles Barkley by Etan Thomas The Nation, December 3, 2014
Dear Charles,
Let me say first that you are among the basketball greats. I remember rooting for you in the ’93 Championship Series against the Bulls along with one of my hometown heroes Richard Dumas. You have achieved a level of success on the court that will be cemented in the basketball history books permanently. Eleven NBA All-Star Game appearances, twice All-Star MVP, once voted NBA MVP, one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. Dream Team, two-time inductee into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. You are basketball royalty.
Your book Who’s Afraid of a Large Black Man? is sitting on my bookshelf right now. It’s a powerful book that takes on the issue of race and racism in a way that many would’ve shied away from.
“Racism,” you said, “is the biggest cancer of my lifetime. And I know I can’t cure the cancer, but doesn’t somebody have to attack it?”
In Who’s Afraid of a Large Black Man? you compiled a very impressive list of fascinating opinions and personal stories from then-Senator Obama, Michael Wilbon, Tiger Woods, Morgan Freeman and many other famous personalities on their ideas about race and other issues in America. Your words were to the point, with little of your trademark humor. It’s clear that the audience you most hoped to reach with this book were young black men and women, and I commend you for using your celebrity status and influence to positively effect black youth.
You have never been afraid to speak your mind and I commend you for that. But with that comes great responsibility.
During an interview on 97.5 The Fanatic in Philadelphia, the day after the Ferguson decision was announced, host Mike Missanelli asked you to express your thoughts about it and why “black America” didn’t trust the ruling. Your response was quite surprising to me. You said: “The true story came out from the grand jury testimony.” You explained that you were made aware of “key forensic evidence, and several black witnesses that supported Officer Darren Wilson’s story…”
You went on to say:
[W]e have to be really careful with the cops, because if it wasn’t for the cops we would be living in the Wild, Wild West in our neighborhoods…we can’t pick out certain incidentals that don’t go our way and act like the cops are all bad…. Do you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be if it wasn’t for the cops?
You continued to refer to the Ferguson looters as “scumbags,” and further praised police officers who work in black neighborhoods, and reiterated that you support the decision made by the grand jury not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the Michael Brown shooting.
Mainstream America was falling over themselves with joy at your statements. They couldn’t be happier.
The headline from Young Conservatives read, “Charles Barkley Speaks The Truth about Ferguson, Calls Out Media, And It’s Epic.”
18 The Tea Party Network wrote, “Former NBA star Charles Barkley slams Ferguson rioters, left stream media and Obama.”
When the wolf begins to praise the sheep, it would be wise for the sheep to undergo some serious self- evaluation.
The fact that they were praising you should have made you take a long look in the mirror. I’m not going to disrespect you by calling you an Uncle Tom or putting up a big picture of Samuel L Jackson from Django Unchained, nor am I writing this to “slam” you, although I am sure many writers will attempt to frame it this way. I respectfully disagree with a position that you have every right to take.
The reason why your latest comments were so surprising for many in the black community is because they appeared to echo Bill O Reilly, Sean Hannity and the rest of Fox News. That’s not what we expect from Sir Charles.
It’s like in Animal Farm where the other animals looked in the window and the pigs were walking upright like the evil humans.
Sir Charles should never appear to be taking on the characteristics of Rush Limbaugh.
This wasn’t the first time either. I did a double take after your statements after the Trayvon Martin verdict. I actually thought I was reading one of those satire articles when you told host Maria Bartiromo on CNBC’s Closing Bell: “That’s probably not a popular opinion among most people. But just looking at the evidence, I agreed with the verdict.”
You went on to say, “I don’t think that guy [George Zimmerman] should have gone to jail for the rest of his life. Because something happened bad that night.”
As a result you will be praised by many who search for a black face to reference who is in agreement with their regularly pushed agendas. It’s the “Rudolph Guliani and cops are always right and the black community is always deserving to be treated as criminals” doctrine.
They’re going to invite you to speak on all of their shows and attend their events. You’ll be awarded admission into their extra “exclusive” golf club memberships. They may even ask you to publicly endorse Ben Carson. You’ll be the “voice of black America” on their shows. It’s like the Don Lemon fast-track to stardom playbook.
You’ll get more commercials, movie roles… hell, we may see you running through the airport jumping over suitcases or starring in the modernized Naked Gun movie with Tucker Carlson as Leslie Neilson. (Just be careful, because all that love and admiration could dissipate in a flash.)
How much confidence can you have in a decision to not indict Darren Wilson when the leading prosecuting attorney was Robert McCulloch, who has never in his entire twenty-three-year career indicted a police officer for killing someone in the line of duty? This was the fifth grand jury McCulloch presented evidence to in a police shooting, and still not a single indictment. And there are other reasons to question this outcome. This PBS Newshour chart shows that sixteen of eighteen grand jury witnesses testified that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was fatally shot.
As far as the police are concerned, we all (black, white, Hispanic, Asian, all communities) want the same thing: we want good, honest, committed police officers who are actually serving and protecting everyone. We’re not indicting all police officers, but we do want criminal police officers removed. To view the police completely as “good” is just as dangerous as viewing them completely as “evil.” Both are very far from accurate.
19 But there is a reason people are hostile. There have been fourteen black teens killed by police since Mike Brown. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice killed in Cleveland, 14-year-old Cameron Tillman in Louisiana, VonDerrit Myers Jr. not far from where Mike Brown was killed, 18-year-old Jeffrey Holden in Kansas City.
In addition, a never-ending reel of police brutality and beatings is constantly shown on social media. And, in most cases, fails to result in any type of punishment for the cop. They typically are put on paid administrative leave (as was Darren Wilson for over 100 days), which is in essence a paid vacation, and yet you have the nerve to praise the police as a whole for their work in the black community ?
And while we don’t condone breaking the law, burning or looting, let me remind you of a quote from Dr. King, who said, “A riot is the voice of the unheard.”
You have to take into account the everyday living and existing in a state of inequality that has led to the riots. The outrage and disgust of feeling helpless. A community who sees no justice. You’re focused on the reaction and not the cause of the reaction.
Dr. King also said, “Our greatest stumbling block toward freedom is not the Ku Klux Klan, it’s the white moderate who are more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.”
Why do you think President Obama asked for $263 million to provide police departments with body cameras? Because sometimes the “scumbags” are in fact the ones with the badge and the ones deserving praise are the ones in the black communities who survive them.
So, as a federal investigation by the Justice Department into the shooting death of Michael Brown continues, in addition to an investigation into allegations of unconstitutional policing patterns and practices by the Ferguson Police Department; and with the inconsistent officer testimony to the grand jury and the continuing mistrust between the black community and the police in mind, you can understand why your statements disappointed, angered, sickened and disgusted many in the black community. Because it felt like betrayal.
You weren’t afraid to ask that all-important question, a question that confronts people who look like Michael Brown, Eric Garner and myself: “Who’s afraid a large black man?” Tragically, it now seems like the answer might be you.
Sincerely,
Etan Thomas
An Open Letter to Richard Sherman by Etan Thomas The Nation September 18, 2015
I have the utmost respect for you. I and my son Malcolm actually started rooting for you and Seattle after watching you in the NFC Championship in 2014 against the San Francisco 49ers.
Everything that transpired as far as the “thug” accusations and uproar from mainstream America that you sparked was an eye-opening lesson for Malcolm on how he will be perceived by society. He has long dreadlocks, loves sports, plays aggressively, and is passionate just like you. So when they were calling you a thug, disgrace, that you set black people back, 8-year-old Malcolm learned a very valuable lesson that will prepare him for life. He learned that perception becomes reality even if it is based on a false narrative.
We watched how you handled everything with class, dignity, and poise. How you made them eat their words by showering them with not only intelligence but brilliance. They picked the perfect person to wrongfully call a thug. We followed you after that. Listened to your speeches. Rooted for your team. Bought your jersey as Malcolm wore it proudly. We became Richard Sherman fans. Your willingness to stand up for 20 what you believe is a great example to all young athletes to follow your lead and use their positions as platforms. To give a voice to the voiceless in the tradition of Muhammad Ali, John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Bill Russell.
However, after seeing your press conference a few days ago where you discussed Black Lives Matter, I felt there was a lot that was left out in your address.
In your words:
“We need to deal with our own internal issues before we move forward and start pointing fingers and start attacking other people. We need to solidify ourselves as people and deal with our issues, because I think as long as we have black-on-black crime and, you know, one black man killing another.… if black lives matter, then it should matter all the time. You should never let somebody get killed—that’s somebody’s son, that’s somebody’s brother, that’s somebody’s friend. So you should always keep that in mind”
The main takeaway from your address appears suggest that “black-on-black” crime somehow excuses police brutality, or at least is a more urgent issue to address. Now, I know you didn’t say that exactly, but that’s what was heard. When you see the various articles written after this press conference, they are branded with titles such as “Richard Sherman Blasts Black Lives Matter Activist,” and “Richard Sherman Holds Nothing Back in Amazing Condemnation of Black Lives Matter Activist.”
It’s exactly what they have been waiting for and specifically what they want to hear. You are too brilliant to allow the media to twist and contort your message to mean what they want it to say.
The fact is, people are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. You can fight against black- on-black crime and police brutality at the same time. You don’t have to pick one or the other. Black-on-black crime has become an often used phrase that has spewed from the mouths of Fox News and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as a feeble attempt to excuse police brutality or murders at the hands of the police. Nobody expected to hear anything remotely similar to that from Richard Sherman.
As Malcolm X once observed, “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
Here’s a question to ask yourself: Why don’t we ever hear discussions about white-on-white crime ?
According to Department of Justice statistics, 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites. In 2011, the number of cases in which white people killed other white people far exceeded the number of cases where black people killed other black people. In fact, between 1980 to 2008, a majority (53.3 percent) of gang-related murders were committed by white people, with a majority of the homicide victims being white as well.
But wait, there’s more.
In America, whites commit the majority of crimes and are also responsible for a vast majority of violent crimes. In 2013, percentages of white people committing aggravated assault, larceny-theft, arson, weapons-carrying, vandalism, and sexual assault far exceeded any other group. But despite these facts, I have never heard any news media outlet express alarm over white-on-white crime.
Why isn’t the entire white community indicted whenever a white person commits a crime ? Why are they looked at as individual instances, but if someone in the black community commits a crime, the entire community committed the crime as well? That false narrative has led to many believing the myth that all or most crimes are being committed by black people.
But despite these statistics, as you said, too many murders are in fact being committed by black people against other black people. That’s an undeniable truth, and that is why many people, myself included, do in 21 fact address murder, crime, delinquent behavior of any type in our own communities. Youth basketball, football, panel discussions, organizations, school visits, camps and speeches delivered to youth to discuss this very issue. You’re brilliant at it, and there are many more who are doing that same work. We definitely need to continue to encourage our young people to do the right thing as a whole. Some do and some don’t, but that still doesn’t excuse the police for treating everyone as a criminal.
Racism, prejudice, and bigotry are all driven by false narratives. In our society, black children learn that they are presumed guilty thugs and dangerous threats because the often-reported on black-on-black crime has been drilled into their minds. That narrative is shown on a continuous reel every night on your local news channel, while white-on-white crime is rarely covered despite the actual statistics. As a result, whenever a black person is murdered by the police, the first thing mainstream America thinks is, oh, the police killed a thug who was probably involved in this black-on-black crime they keep hearing about. So they lack compassion. They don’t view it as the police murdering a human being; instead they say, well, let’s wait to see the facts first, because he may have been one of those thugs we have been hearing about.
In addition, at the conclusion of almost every police murder of an unarmed black person, there is an an attempt by the media to demonize that murdered black person. He was “no angel.” They’ll show a mugshot- type picture of him, dig through his or her past to see if there is anything that could denigrate their character, all in an effort to push that same false narrative.
I was glad that you stated that not all cops are criminals. You’re right. But not all black people are committing these black-on-black crimes you refer to either. Furthermore, if you are imploring us to not put the police all in the same boat (which we definitely shouldn’t do), you can’t make excuses for them putting us all in the same boat either. Less we forget, that is exactly what led to reporters around the country to call you a thug back in 2014. Did you have anything to do with black-on-black crime? Of course not. But that didn’t stop them from calling you a thug 625 times on TV.
The fact is there is an issue with police practices in this country. When James Frascatore, the cop who slammed tennis player James Blake to the ground, has four civil cases pending for excessive force, and nobody in the NYPD asks whether he should still be in active duty, you have a much bigger problem.
If the NYPD didn’t fire Officer Daniel Pantaleo for choking Eric Garner to death should we really expect to see them fire Officer James Frascatore for tackling James Blake?
Understand this: When black people commit murder, more times than not, they go to jail. However, when the police commit murder of unarmed black people, even if it was caught on video, even if there are witnesses, even if the case appears to be the simplest open and shut case, the outcome is far too often suspension with pay, which is, in essence, a paid vacation. The result has usually been a not-guilty verdict or a non-indictment altogether. There is a much bigger issue with the way they police as a whole. We can’t allow anyone to excuse these types of actions as being understandable or acceptable because of the notion of black-on-black crime.
Again, I understand your point about what we need to do in our community, but that is mutually exclusive of the fact that there is a much bigger problem that exists.
Yes, as you said we’re all human beings, but the problem is we’re not all respected and treated as human beings. Case in point: When you have Michael Vick’s dogs receiving more justice than Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice combined, you see exactly what society believes our lives are worth, and believe me, young black people are seeing that as well. So it’s up to us to impress upon them that, no matter what society tells them and shows them, their life matters. That in spite of every non-indictment, every not-guilty verdict after the police have murdered another unarmed black person, that their lives are important and that they matter. Not that society thinks that but that they have to believe that, and that they owe it to themselves to avoid the traps and pitfalls that have been purposely put in place for them to fall into.
22 I am writing this with the utmost respect. Your voice is too powerful. You embody what we want athletes to aspire to become. Athletes who use their position as a platform and create change. Athletes who are unafraid to speak their minds and are unapologetic when it comes to standing up for what they believe in. But with that power comes great responsibility, and you have to choose your words very carefully, because a lot of people see that you’re special and take what you say to heart.
Respect.
23
Should Athletes be Activists? By: Shireen Ahmed
Introduction In an era where athletes are superstars and boast huge platforms, is it reasonable to expect that they should advocate for specific social justice causes in society? Do those who identify as queer have a moral obligation to speak up on issues that affect their communities? Should women stand up and speak of challenges obstacle to achieving intersectional feminist goals within sports?
This paper shows that the expectation of activism on athletes of marginalized communities above and beyond their participation in sport is unreasonable. The demands of training, competition are arduous enough. Engaging in certain political or social issues might emotionally and physically trigger the athlete or/and could be excessively taxing. Although athletes can be social media celebrities, their private struggles and how they handle those stresses can be deeply personal. Particularly if the history involves emotional, sexual abuse or one of the many forms of violence. Society must take collective responsibility of its ills. Proper allyship from those with greater agency, power and privilege can also foster a safer space for athletes. It is inconceivable that an athlete whohas faced a form of oppression could essentially be bullied into activism.
Background Sheldon Kennedy and Theo Fleury had tremendously successful careers in the NHL. Both players completely shocked the hockey world when they came forward about the sexual abuse they endured at the hands of their coach, Graham James, in the junior hockey league. Had these two men not come forward it would have been understandable. The trauma and hurt they experienced as victims is undeniable. Fleury wrote a memoir of destructive habits he delved into as an adult to ‘numb the pain’.36 Perhaps advocacy might come as a form of a support network to other survivors- as have female athletes have done.37 It is not reasonable to demand public forums from athletes. If they choose to band together as a collective to advocate, that should be respected. The issues are so jarring, athletes may need more support. Kennedy and Fleury both admitted being suicidal. 38 The result of speaking out prematurely or without adequate support could be detrimental to the mental and emotional health of an athlete.
There is also the reality that if the politics do not match up with those of the federation or organization, the athlete is at risk of losing their career and financial opportunities. Athletes may be fined for their political statements, as was the case of footballer Frederic Kanoute when he lifted his jersey during a match in the Spanish League to reveal a t-shirt that read “Palestine”. 39 The fear of economic penalization for political activism could also be a deterrent for athletes.
36 Charlie Gillis, “Theo Fleury was Abused: an absolute nightmare, every day of my life”, MacLeans, October 9, 2009, http://www.macleans.ca/society/theoren-fleury-was-abused-an-absolute-nightmare-every-day-of-my-life/ 37 Scott M. Reid, “Athletes who survived abuse join together to advocate”, OC Register, March 18, 2012, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/starr-344962-abuse-sexual.html 38 “The Sheldon Kennedy/ Graham James Case: Sexual Abuse in Canadian Junior Hockey”, silentedge, http://www.silent-edge.org/kennedy.html
39 “Kanoute fined for goal message”, BBC Sport, January 10, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/7822103.stm 24 Lebron James was the topic of a Twitter hashtag #NoJusticeNoLebron created by Activist and former- athlete Tariq Toure. He argued that there is a reasonable expectation for James to boycott NBA games in the aftermath of the not-guilty verdict of Tamir Rice’s killer- a white cop. Tariq maintains that James has a platform and ability to reach thousands of impressionable youth who look to him as a role model from their own community of Cleveland; and James has had similar experiences to the same inner-city youth, thus he should be vocal in his opposition to police brutality of this case.40 Yet, Professor Lou Moore wrote that the burden of speaking up should not be on the shoulder of athletes who are told to act the way others expect. Lebron, he argues, is an activist but “on his own terms.”41
Chris Kluwe, former punter for the Minnesota Vikings, openly spoke out in favour of marriage-equality and was fired by the organization. Kluwe later wrote that the head coach warned him: "a wise coach once told me there are two things you don't talk about in the NFL, politics and religion."42 With this mentality fairly common in the world of professional sports, it is difficult to expect any athlete to be public on any matter without fearing for their livelihood.
Alternatively, should athletes choose to use their platforms to speak up, they should receive support not criticism. It is an incredibly brave act and those individuals or teams should have the solidarity they deserve.
Boxer Muhammad Ali was one of the most successful athletes in boxing history. Not only did he win titles and world glory, he also publicly declared his opinions on matters affecting Black people in the United States. This was unprecedented. In 1967, the world’s champion famously offered unforgiving remarks regarding his views on America’s war in Vietnam and against his “brothers”. 43
“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. ”44
Ali, who was already adored by his communities, started a conversation about the uncomfortable topic of racial oppression. It would be one of the many spearheaded by athletes. Was it necessary for Ali to address issues of classism, racism and white privilege? Absolutely not. His choice to use his platform to amplify challenges of Black and Muslim Americans was solely his own. He opted to risk financial punishment, incarceration and the possible destruction of his career for what he believed in. It can be argued that he paved the way- bulldozed, rather- for athletes from marginalized communities that would follow.
40 Tariq Toure, “No Justice, No Lebron: A Last Thought”, January 1, 2016 http://tariqtoure.tumblr.com/post/136435265795/no-justice-no-lebron-a-last-thought 41 Louis Moore, “Let Lebron James Practice Activism On His Own Terms”, vocativ, December 31, 2015, http://www.vocativ.com/news/266495/let-lebron-james-practice-activism-on-his-own-terms/ 42 Chris Kluwe, “I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot”, Deadspin, January 2, 2014, http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-player-until-i-was-fired-by-two-cowards-an-1493208214 43 “From the archive, 29 April, 1967: Muhammad Ali refuses to fight in Vietnam war” The Guardian (April 29, 2013), http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/apr/29/muhammad-ali-refuses-to-fight-in-vietnam-war-1967
44 Joe Allen, “Vietnam: The (Last) War the US Lost”, Haymarket Books: 2007, p.94
25 There is a rich history of athletes who have (un)willingly become activists for many different issues be it gender rights in society, violent racist systems, victims of sexual abuse or homophobia. It can be argued that athletes who do decide to act are either provoked or inspired by events that have directly affected their communities or group of person by which they identify. Often, athletes feel the need to speak out after experiencing crippling forms of homophobic, racist and / or misogynistic abuse.
Billie Jean King, engulfed herself in advocating for women’s rights after realizing that a woman’s place in tennis was economically restricted. When King won Wimbledon in 1968 she received £750, but her male counterpart Rod Laver won £2000. In 1973, she famously accepted a challenge from tennis player and male chauvinist figure, Bobby Riggs and won in three straight sets. Not only did an estimated 50 million people across 37 countries watch the epic “Battle of the Sexes”, but King drew much needed attention to financial inequality and created the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA). Former professional tennis player Chris Evert, has said of King’s contributions: "Everybody should thank her and shake her hand. She put money in our pockets and provided a living for hundreds and hundreds of female athletes.”45 Financial inequality and lack of proper remuneration of female athletes is a quagmire in sports. Despite a stark difference in prize money for such major tournaments as the FIFA Women’s World Cup. The dim silver lining seems to be wider discussions of gender inequality in pay have been prevalent in mainstream, male- dominated sports media that would otherwise not even address such topics.46
Female athletes have routinely had to speak up about issues they face. Serena Williams has been the target of ruthless and racist sports media. She has been maligned yet still uses her platform to connect with important organizations such as Equal Justice initiative and has boycotted major tournaments because of her convictions. 47 Similarly, American fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, first hijab-wearing athlete to be on a USA Olympic Team recently expressed her disdain with professional bigot Republican front runner Donald Trump and his xenophobic policies: “If Donald Trump had his way, America would be white”.48 As an identifiable Muslim woman and part of a community that Trump has consistently attacked49, Muhammad spoke up about Islamophobic vitriol spewed by the US Presidential candidate.
Athletes may not get an opportunity to speak at all unless they are athletes. In some societies, dissent is impermissible. Niloufar Ardalan, decorated Captain of Iran Women’s Futsal Team used her revered position and lived experience to criticize governmental and religious policy regarding the lack of mobility rights of women.50 By using her privilege, she is forcing a conversation in a country that loves its football as much as it’s religious identity.
45 Paul Gittings, “Pioneer Billie Jean King Championed Equality in Women’s Tennis”, CNN Online, November 19, 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/20/sport/tennis/tennis-billie-jean-king-wta-equality/
46 Shireen Ahmed, “Women’s World Cup May Seem like a Feminist Fairy Tale, But the Fight’s Not Over”, RH Reality Check, July 10, 2015, http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/07/10/womens-world-cup-may-seem-like-feminist-fairy-tale- fights/
47 Dave Zirin, “Serena Williams Is Today’s Muhammad Ali”, The Nation, July 14, 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/serena-williams-is-todays-muhammad-ali/
48 Sean Gregory, “A New face for Team USA”, TIME, February 22, 2016, http://time.com/fencer/
49 Shireen Ahmed, “Muslim Athletes Trump Bigotry”, FanSided, December 9, 2015 http://fansided.com/2015/12/09/muslim-athletes-trump-bigotry/
50 Shireen Ahmed, “Stadiums are Still Closed to Women in Iran”, VICE Sports, October 5, 2015, https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/stadiums-are-still-closed-to-women-in-iran 26
Recommendations
Encouraging youth to get involved in the political process is important. The Right of Freedom of Expression are as correlated to sports as the Right to Play. Wearing an “I Can’t Breathe” shirt courtside in Mendocino, California - even after being ejected from a tournament51 or sporting a rainbow-coloured nails in solidarity to support LGBT rights52 is crucial. Accountability on the side of both athletes and sports lovers is critical. The burden of change should not be placed on athletes alone; even coaches can support as Cal Women’s Basketball team’s coach did.53 Those possessing more privilege (ie. white, cis, male, structural power, etc.) can be better allies and act either publicly or quietly by amplifying and supporting the needs of athletes. A look back in history shows us Luz Long as an unprecedented ally to Jesse Owens during the 1936 Berlin Olympics while Hitler glared on. Peter Norman supported the iconic efforts of Dr.John Carlos and Tommie Smith at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City; he did not have his fist raised in the air but as he stood on the 2nd place podium, he wore a badge in solidarity with both Black men. In 1945 Branch Rickey advocated for major league baseball’s first Black player, Jackie Robinson.
As Dave Zirin wrote in The Nation: “If you want its blessings, then share its burdens and call for justice for Michael Brown. Either black lives matter or they don’t. In other words, either the lives of your teammates matter or they don’t. It’s time, white athletes: take some of the damn weight.”54 There have been so many examples of athletes using sport as a vehicle for socio-political commentary. As long as the space is safe for the athletes to partake, without feeling the entire burden of creating change or ‘fixing’ any problems, support should be unconditional for them.
51 Rook Campbell, “Athlete activists and a new year of protest fashion”, the fields of green, January 9, 2015, http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2015/01/09/athlete-activists-and-a-new-year-of-protest-fashion/
52 Sara Gates, “Athletes Rainbow Nails Will Not Be Tolerated At The Olympics, Sweden Warns”, The Huffington Post, August 20, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/rainbow-nails-olympics-sweden_n_3785418.html
53 Bill Hanstock, “Cal Women’s Basketball team Wears #BlackLivesMatter Shirts”, SB Nation, December 14, 2014, http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/12/14/7389693/cal-womens-basketball-team-wears-blacklivesmatter-shirts
54 Dave Zirin, “Do #BlackLivesMatter to White Athletes? Let’s Ask Them”, The Nation, November 14, 2014, http://www.thenation.com/article/do-blacklivesmatter-white-athletes-lets-ask-them/
27