I have been very disappointed over the past two weeks watching the Olympic Games. I am a huge Olympics fan and watch as much as I possibly can. I can’t explain how I suddenly became a passionate fan of sports I normally never watch, then, every four years, I find myself completely invested in curling. But it’s not really about the sport. It’s about the athletes.
It’s about men and women who train their entire lives for the possibility of this one moment, knowing that four years is a long time to wait, and that the opportunity may never come again. It’s about watching athletes proudly represent their nations. The Olympics have always felt like a time to set aside our differences and cheer for the red, white, and blue.
Yet now, even that has changed.
In our current political climate, even the Olympics have become divided. Some athletes openly criticized the country they represented. I learned during these games that we were supposed to pick sides and only root for the athletes who think like we do. When did that start?
I read that some on the left were upset that many on the right cheered for American figure skater Alysa Liu when she won gold because she is one of theirs. I wasn’t aware that was a rule. Then heaven forbid the men’s hockey team took a call from the President of the United States. You know the elected leader of the nation that they represented after they won for the first time since 1980. Why did they not know they were supposed to hang up on him after calling him a fascist? For the Summer Games, maybe the Olympic committee needs to hand out instructions to all the athletes beforehand.
Speaking of 1980, I was only six years old, but I still remember my teachers playing the U.S. versus Russia hockey game in school. I didn’t understand the geopolitical significance at the time, but even at that age, I sensed it was special. It felt like a moment when Americans, regardless of political differences, rallied behind our team. It would have been unthinkable for someone to criticize the “Miracle on Ice” team for taking a call from the President. It would have been expected.
Why does talking to a president, or visiting the White House, become a litmus test for party loyalty? It should be an honor, regardless of who sits behind the desk.
I have a theory about how this began. One of my favorite athletes has always been Charles Barkley, in part, because he once said, “I’m not a role model. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn’t mean I should raise your kids.” He understood something many forget: famous people should not be heroes. There are athletes and entertainers we admire for their talent. I have written about several for his column—but I don’t know them personally, I know the image they present.
And yet many—especially young fans—do idolize them and follow their lead.
That brings me to 2017. After the Golden State Warriors won the NBA Championship, President Trump followed tradition and invited the team to the White House. Steph Curry publicly declined the invitation due to disagreements with the president. At that point, Trump rescinded his request, of just Curry or entire team is not clear, but the team decided to not go. Curry put out a statement stating, “That we don’t stand for basically what our president has … the things that he’s said and the things that he hasn’t said in the right times, that we won’t stand for it. By acting and not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country.”
What kind of change was he hoping to inspire? How does giving the President the middle finger when he invites you to celebrate a win fix the divisiveness we are facing? Was Curry hoping Trump would stop the escalating tension with North Korea and that his refusal to attend the White House would bring world peace? I’m not excusing Trump’s behavior here. He acted childish. But Curry could have set an amazing example to his young fans of a better way to handle differences. He has way more influence on young people than the president does.
The Warriors did not help when, later, they announced that instead of visiting the White House, they would use their trip to Washington, D.C., to celebrate equality, diversity, and inclusion. Those are worthy values, but true diversity must also include diversity of thought. Inclusion should not exclude those who think differently. If you want to celebrate those values, demonstrate that it’s okay to meet with people with whom you disagree.
Historically speaking, it is worth examining a quote from Warriors coach Steve Kerr, who said he would love to go if these were normal times, “But these are not ordinary times. Probably the most divisive times in my life, I guess, since Vietnam.”
It’s hard to compare NBA teams during Vietnam, as visiting the White House was not a big thing for sports teams until the 1980s. The Celtics did visit in 1963, but the war was in its infancy, and no one was really paying it much attention. A better comparison was boxing. In 1967, Muhammad Ali was arrested for refusing the draft during the Vietnam War, making a bold stand against policies he opposed. Yet in 1974, after defeating George Foreman, Ali visited Republican President Gerald Ford. Ali understood that engaging with leaders—even those with whom he disagreed—could help heal a divided nation. That is how dialogue begins.
Instead, current sports stars from the NBA to Olympians are further building the divide. Kids who watch them want to be like them. Ali understood that going to the White House did not mean he endorsed the president; it meant we could work together.
While Curry was not the first athlete to refuse a presidential invitation, the Warriors were the first team. Now it has become so common that when Trump recognized the gold medal-winning hockey team during his State of the Union address, some Democrats in Congress refused to clap.
How can we expect America to heal when our leaders can’t even celebrate that? Not every hockey player is a Trump fan, but that shouldn’t matter anyway. They celebrated America with its president. We should celebrate them.
Perhaps we cannot expect athletes to bridge divides when our leaders refuse to do so themselves. However, maybe our athletes can use their enormous influence to unify instead of divide. At the end of each game, winners and losers all shake hands. Maybe they can learn to model that off the court, field, or rink as well as on.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to the Southwest Ledger and the Lawton Constitution for sharing his column.
