By Ben Goodman ’16, Sports Editor

On a Sunday afternoon  last December, inside the Edward Jones Dome in Missouri, fans of the St. Louis Rams eagerly awaited the start of an ordinary NFL game. As the Rams ran onto the field, though, it became apparent that five players had planned their own, special introduction. With a stadium, a city, and soon, most of the country watching, the five raised their arms in the air to mimic the Ferguson and New York City protestors’ “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” slogan to show solidarity with Michael Brown and Eric Garner, two black men killed by policemen, whose lack of indictment has inspired debate, criticism, and sometimes violence. Today’s ego-driven world of social media, celebrity, and connectedness has caused an uptick in athletes who express their political and social views to vast audiences, as opposed to earlier sporting days, wherein it was sportsmanlike to refrain from “dragging” sports into politics.

These actions beg the question: is this okay?

Athletes like the four Rams players are at once lauded (at least by those who agree with them) for speaking out and bemoaned for interrupting the status quo and arguably overstepping their bounds as professionals. They, of course, have at their disposal the same Constitutional liberties granted to the rest of the citizenry, so this debate is not really about legality. Rather, it’s fought in the tricky and gray field of morality; in other words, athletes can absolutely speak freely about their beliefs, but should they? American sports are a multibillion-dollar industry, and top athletes are icons, shown and scrutinized on TV almost 24/7; they are role models for many adoring adolescents. This truth we cannot wish away; it is at this point a national reality.

Members of the Newark Academy community have similar but not identical perspectives on how athletes should handle their political beliefs in this minefield where even their inane comments hold incredible weight. English faculty member Stephanie Acquadro recognized that as role-models, athletes have a “degree of responsibility” to perpetuate good, civil behavior. Mrs. Acquadro expressed her approval, therefore, in some athletes’ activism, namely, when LeBron James wore a hoodie during player warm-ups after Trayvon Martin died, to show solidarity with the plight of black male youths. “The majority of players in the NBA appear to be African Americans… so expressing such a powerful message of unity was important,” she reasoned. While Elias Neibart ’16 expressed encouragement for “participating and knowing current events,” he, in contrast, drew a line for when it comes to game time, saying, “When they (athletes) are on the field, they should avoid being political activists.” At Newark Academy, in the writer’s memory, there hasn’t been a moment when a student-athlete has gone out on a limb and made some political statement on the field of play, and it would be interesting to see his/her coach’s, his/her teammates’, and the administration’s response.

A clear-cut verdict on athlete activism can hardly be obtained; after all, fans’ desire to leave politics behind when watching sports should be respected, but athletes may of course express themselves, and sometimes their statements can positively impact their communities. What is clear is the American culture’s curiosity, nay, near obsession, with pro-athletes. If we scrutinize LeBron’s clothing, family, and eating habits, we inevitably wonder about his politics.