By Lynn Mandaville

The NFL (National Football League) has issued some new policies and rule changes this week.

Besides eliminating running starts on kickoffs, the league has issued new policy stating that all players are expected to show respect for the American flag and the National Anthem by standing (not kneeling) on the sidelines.  Those who do not wish to do so will be allowed to remain in the locker room or a designated area away from the sidelines.

I applaud the changes to actual game play that will minimize, or even eliminate, those skull-jarring collisions which have contributed to serious CTE in football professionals.  The league has shown some honest efforts to protect their bread and butter players since the recognition of CTE as a miserable, job-related injury.  I’m sure this won’t be the end of such efforts.  Football fans and non-fans, and the league owners and managers, understand fully the tragedy of a preventable condition, and want to spare further damage to their human inventory.

My stand on the new policy regarding players’ ability to express protest on the sidelines prior to games, however, is not so favorable.

There are some who argue that a benign form of protest, taking a knee during the National Anthem, against racism and police brutality toward African-Americans, is a distraction and interference with the game.  Players are being paid to play football, not to protest.  Keep politics out of the game.

Those who use this argument don’t know, or have forgotten, that the playing of the National Anthem, and other displays of patriotism, before or during ball games, is a fairly modern addition to the ritual of professional football, and, in many cases, are financially subsidized by the federal government.  Additionally, these arguers don’t know, or have chosen to ignore, that these nationalistic displays are political in nature in and of themselves.

Next, there is the argument that players are free to protest outside the stadium, away from their place of work, so why the need to horn in on an entertainment venue?  They should just go out in the street, on their own time, and protest like everyone else who has an axe to grind.

The adherents to this argument might feel differently if their unions were told they could not strike their places of employment during working hours in protest of unfair labor practices.  They might feel differently if they were told they could not wear religious jewelry on the job, or display partisan buttons or bumper stickers on clothing or cars while on an employer’s property.

Like it or not, freedom of speech is the cornerstone on which the United States of America is built.  It is here, in this nation, that we can say out loud and in public, with only a handful of exceptions, whatever is on our minds, without recrimination or retaliation.  It is here, in this nation, that we can display, through silent actions, our support or displeasure with the plethora of divergent issues existing in a pluralistic society, without recrimination or retaliation.

To silence one specific element of our great society with red herrings is just plain wrong.  In this instance, it is purely racist, and it is spurred on by a president who sees nothing wrong with taking a position against one aspect of our democratic structure at the cost of dividing a nation.

It’s my opinion that the real issue lies in intentionally skewing the emotional element of love of country.  This controversy is fed by confusing peaceful protest of an intolerable social condition with one’s perceived respect for his country.

I dare say that most Americans, if faced with the option, would choose the United States as their preferred home, for a vast number of reasons.

I dare say that most Americans, if asked, would say that they love their country, deeply and unconditionally.

The American flag and the National Anthem are merely the powerful outward symbols of the land we love. Therein lies the rub.

If we love our country, should we or should we not expose her faults and strive to correct them?  If we love our country, and find corrective measures slow or non-existent in coming, should we or should we not employ more strident methods of encouraging change?

Address that question to sweatshop laborers who demanded release from the shackles of fourteen hour days and seven day weeks in unsafe conditions.  Address it to any immigrant population who came to this country voluntarily, or who was dragged here against its will, and was exploited by the white, European-descended establishment.  Address it to a young generation of American men who were compelled to fight a foreign war that was largely considered to be the immoral interference in a civil war on another continent.

The nature of protest is to draw attention to any issue with which one takes exception.  The most effective way to draw attention is to use a platform with broad visibility, connected to something that stirs emotion, in a peaceful manner.  The fact that some will find the circumstances of the venue objectionable further heightens attention to the matter at hand, and increases the odds that that issue will be noticed, discussed, argued, and, ultimately, brought to peaceful resolution.

NFL players, black and white, have adopted the take-a-knee approach to protesting systemic racism and police brutality aimed at black Americans.  They have chosen to conduct that protest at a venue that provides maximum visibility.  They have vocalized their truth that this expression is not aimed at or intended as a slight against the military, the flag, the anthem, or the nation.

But a vocal chorus has decided to ignore that truth, and has suggested that, just perhaps, there is actually a condition that exists wherein compromising the first amendment is acceptable.  That maybe there just might be a situation where it is legal to deny first amendment rights to a selected handful of America’s citizens.

From our Declaration of Independence:  “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they [the people] should declare the causes which impel them” to seek separation from unjust acts.

From our Constitution:  “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

NFL players are protesting by way of their free speech, declaring those causes which compel them to seek relief from oppressive actions.  NFL players are exercising their free speech to petition various  aspects of government to redress their grievances regarding institutionalized mistreatment of African Americans.  To relegate their free expression to the locker rooms is clearly, in my opinion, a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I would suggest that it is not the professional players in the National Football League who are disrespecting the America that is symbolized by her flag and National Anthem.

I would suggest that it is the misguided American public, and the current administration, who are disrespecting the country and the sacred documents which guide it, through their callous disregard of the primary freedom listed in its Constitutional Amendments.

Should the NFL rescind the new policy?  For me, it’s a no-brainer.  It’s a resounding yes.

Details