**sorry this is late, wanted to get it done May 1, writer's block hit hard ha**
Responsibility of the professional athlete, to be specific. As most of you know, the backwards ass state of Arizona legalized racial profiling this week. (If you feel inclined, go ahead and click on the link and sign the petition.) As the title implies, I won't be attacking this issue directly, since I don't know enough of the specifics; and more importantly, this is an obscenely straightforward issue. If you don't see this as an egregious problem, go ahead and: 1. stop reading, 2. leave this site, 3. take on a Grizzly in a cage match.
As I wrote, this is about the responsibility that comes with being a public figure in the realm of sports. The idea for this came from reading this post on FreeDarko which talked about whether or not Steve Nash had a responsibility to speak out against the law that was put in place. While they exhausted the particular topic, it brought up the question of when is someone responsible to take a public stand, or of that burden even exists.
My initial reaction is the exact opposite of most people; of course they shouldn't be responsible. Do they get paid to make political stands? NO! Do we pay money to watch them make a speech on why racial profiling is bad? Or do we pay money to watch them dunk on someone, catch a touchdown, hit a home run? Obviously it's the latter. Right?
Problem with that is that we don't live 20 - hell, even 10 - years ago. In my perfect world, once an athlete leaves his place of work, that's it. He's a regular person. Problem is the world we live in NOW is becoming progressively more digital, and the internet doesn't have any boundaries. So how do we draw lines?
The first rule should be, job performance should never be effected. You can demand your favorite athletes to have thick skin and be able to take all the shit "fans" throw at 'em, and perform at a consistently high level no matter what. You can also demand them to hit .400, score 100 points, rush for 400 yards, etc. etc. etc. They're human beings, just like the rest of us. They have a little more practice than regular people at deflecting hateful bullshit, but again, they're human.
To get back on point, if someone decides to make a stand, they will be pissing people off. It's inevitable. And when it's Steve Nash sticking up for Mexicans in Arizona, he's pissing everyone off.
The flip side of this argument is very murky, at least to me. For the record, I DO feel that Nash should have (still should) let his voice be heard, but only because I do know that he's a well informed individual and that this issue is such an egregious violation of human decency and morality. But who am I to make that judgement? Who is he to decide what is right and wrong? The issue with a celebrity using his or her voice is that their voice is TOO powerful. What if it were Derrick Rose speaking out against some perceived injustice? No unjust disrespect to Rose, who seems to be a nice kid and genuinely good person, but he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Do we really want that type of influence in the hands of people who shouldn't have it? It's a very slippery slope.
So to be honest, I don't have an answer to this question. It's definitely something to think about. The essential factor, to me, is that what we're truly paying the athletes for doesn't get effected. After that, crapshoot.
P.S. Steve Nash is the coolest person on the planet haha
No comments:
Post a Comment