As this dreadful presidential campaign descended into X-rated muck, it’s been a relief to watch an intense local discussion about this country and its principles. And it’s been gratifying to know that the issues were put before us by a group of young people.

This year’s presidential race has been so awful that it’s almost certainly undermining what little respect many Americans still have for government. And it may dampen voter turnout for decades. Watching prominent politicians act the way they’re acting, who could have faith that they’ll help bring about a better country? And who could have faith that ordinary Americans can help bring about change?

Apparently, some Rochester teenagers do.

Earlier this fall, the members of the World of Inquiry soccer team joined numerous other athletes around the country in protest, kneeling during the playing of the national anthem at the start of a game. Their intent, obviously, was to follow the example of San Francisco 49ers player Colin Kaepernick, calling attention to the injustices suffered by Americans of color, particularly in the criminal justice system.

It’s no surprise that the local protesting team is from the World of Inquiry, a school whose very mission is to encourage questioning and self-learning. Nor is it a surprise that their protest was controversial. The players have gotten lots of support, particularly from other World of Inquiry students, but they’ve also been accused of disrespecting police officers, the American flag, and the national anthem.

I disagree with those critics, but I understand their concerns. Some veterans, for instance, say they were offended – “hurt” isn’t too strong a word – by the protest. And I’m sure the students are learning from what they’re hearing.

In fact, you can find a thoughtful discussion of the team’s protest on Evan Dawson’s October 4 “Connections” show on WXXI-AM.

The show’s participants were team members Miguel Lopez and James Weh; WOIS student Michael Hunter; Miguel Lopez’s father Michael, who is also the player’s former coach, and Todd Baxter, executive director of the Veterans Outreach Center.

Baxter praised the students but added that when people kneel rather than stand during the national anthem, some veterans will feel it’s an insult.

“We go to war for that flag,” Baxter said. “Our friends’ coffins are draped in that flag. We take it as a very sacred symbol.”

“Nothing,” said Baxter, “is more sacred than that flag and the president.”

Baxter said he supported the team’s right to protest but wished they had done it another way.

“I thank you for everything you’ve done for this country,” responded James Weh. But, he added: “What you and your friends have fought for is what we’re trying to exercise.”

“Nobody knows what we’re thinking when we’re doing it,” said Weh. “Nobody can say that we’re doing it to disrespect veterans.”

“The flag does not just represent the military,” said Michael Lopez. “It represents the country. It’s more disrespectful not to honor the Constitution.”

That kind of discussion is healthy. But other criticism has been ugly. And because the team includes students who are immigrants, attacks have been aimed not only at immigrants but also at Muslims. That behavior is unconscionable. And with a presidential candidate whipping it up, it’ll be hard to tamp down, let alone change.

The rest of us, though, need to stand up for the protesters.

And that needs to start with school district adults. There’s been a bit of talk about having the protests be a teachable moment, but the “teaching” seems aimed only at the students. District officials have suggested that the soccer players should talk with their parents, their teachers, their coach, school administrators before they decided to protest.

District officials say they’re not suggesting that the players should get the adults’ permission to protest. But since the protest would offend some people, they say, they want to make sure the students understand what they’re doing.

That’s an “I support your right to protest, but” attitude.

All of those adults are authority figures. Some students may feel confident that these adults are simply giving them information to consider. Others, undoubtedly, will find that discussion intimidating.

A unique complication to the WOI team’s protest is that some of the players are students at the district’s Rochester International Academy, not World of Inquiry. Many RIA students are recent immigrants, and they, like their parents, are still learning about US government and politics.

As the controversy continued, WOI teacher Kelly LaLonde told me she worries that students have been manipulated from both sides: by district officials who were concerned about the protest and by some team members and parents, encouraging the protest.

Some players who are immigrants, LaLonde said, have told her that they’re afraid they might be denied citizenship because of the protest. Some “come from countries where people disappear in the middle of the night,” she said, “and these kids are afraid there will be repercussions.”

Clearly everybody involved in this particular situation has a lot to learn, students and adults alike. But the adults have an important responsibility now, to help all of the students navigate the results – without warnings and intimidation. And they have a responsibility to applaud the players for taking a stand on one of the vital issues of the day.

“It’s OK to disagree with the kids’ perspective or with the way they protested,” Mike Lopez told me last week. But, he said: “The biggest enemy is apathy. We have a group of kids who do care and are involved and are involving their teammates.”

The World of Inquiry team’s protest was a peaceful, quiet one. In kneeling, the students stood up for the principles and values of the United States. They did it publicly, to call attention to an issue important to them and to all of us. Doing it privately would be meaningless.

They exercised their rights. And they didn’t need adults’ permission – or advance notification – to do it.

This article appears in Oct 19-25, 2016.

Mary Anna Towler is a transplant from the Southern Appalachians and is editor, co-publisher, and co-founder of City. She is happy to have converted a shy but opinionated childhood into an adult job. She...

28 replies on “A soccer team gives us an example of patriotism”

  1. Patriotism

    [pey-tree-uh-tiz-uh m or, esp. British, pa-]
    noun
    1.
    devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.

  2. The flag, to many in my generation represents or symbolizes many things patriotic about our country; like E Pluribus Unum ( from many, one). It was a unifying symbol and considered sacred, so we stand, we salute and we protect it,
    It represents the unity of the people our states and country; hence we are presently called The United States of America.

    I guess different generations or some people have learned other meanings about the flag or that it doesn’t symbolize patriotism, unity or the love one has for our country.
    What I learned about the flag was handed down to me from my parents, grand parents, teachers and from the time I spent in service to our country, in the US Army.

    Not everyone has that same experience in learning about and respecting the flag, so I can understand why some children and adults think it’s okay to act and respond to the flag as they do.
    I can forgive them because they have that right to protest, even though it hurts many of us who have sacrificed on their behalf to maintain their freedom and right to protest.

    It’s unfortunate that their actions can be viewed as working against, rather than for the unification of our country.
    Our country has become more divided and is heading in the wrong direction.
    Is it possible that the results of this election will be a step towards a stronger, more unified America? I hope so.

  3. What does disrespecting the American flag and National Anthem have to do with calling attention to the injustices suffered by Americans of color, particularly in the criminal justice system? If that’s your beef, then let’s talk about it. It’s the left that has stifled conversation. So, stand up, put your hand over your heart and let’s talk. Oh, facts only, not emotions.

  4. Patriotism is the notion that your country in the best due mostly to the fact of you having been born there!

  7. Howard, if you want to live one hundred years in the past, keeping old grievances alive, whether true or false, knock yourself out, but don’t infect the rest of us. This is the same “liberation ” theology practiced by jeremiah wright and b.o. It does nothing to help people get out of the godforsaken place the democrats have created for blacks.

    Whether right or wrong, put the past behind you. Tomorrow’s a new day.

    Onward and upward.

  8. Dear Readers and commenters above,

    Before you comment about how disrespectful these gentlemen were in their actions, I would like to challenge you to do some work around empathy.
    Can you put your “stuff” aside and look through someone else’s eyes?
    Can you search for understanding someone’s else feelings and emotions other than your own? Our children are trying to tell us something, peacefully. Instead of arguing whether or not we think its right or wrong, why don’t we just listen?

    Thank you Mary Anna Towler for hearing them.

  9. If the team burned the flag before the game, would that constitute standing up for “the principles and values of the United States”? Is any exercise of one’s free-speech rights, by definition, patriotic? Even if the target is a symbol of our nation itself? What if a team knelt to show their opposition to legalized same-sex marriage? Would that be a patriotic act? Would you defend them to the same extent?

  10. It seems there is a mincing and twisting in the meaning of patriotism with the constitutional rights of our country.
    What does practicing one’s constitutional rights have to do with loving your country?
    You are just operating within the set rules ( the constitution) of our country.

    That’s like saying if you follow your mother’s rules, that means you love your mother.
    Or if you follow God’s commandments, that you love God.
    So if you don’t follow your mother’s rules or God’s commandments, then you don’t love them?
    That’s ridiculous because following the rules or working within your rights has nothing to do with loving your mother, God or your country.

    How you feel about your country is much different than practicing your rights in your country. Remember, patriotism is a devoted love, support and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.
    Again, it seems the author has a convoluted way of misleading people.

  11. If ever in the annals of City Newspaper called out for a Joseph Welch moment – confronting Joe McCarthy, “Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you no decency?” it is now: not too long ago on this site Don Sherman repeated the cheap Trump lie that on 9/11 scores of Muslims cheered the fall of the Twin Towers, providing crypto-Fascist links to “prove” this disgusting lie. Mr. Sherman, you just walked all over the Ninth Commandment; you know, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Do not talk to us about God and Country when making a mockery of the most basic Christian – and American – values and not even getting the basics of the Ten Commandments down.

  12. Don is absolutely correct with his analogies. Not standing for the anthem is a right guaranteed by the Constitution that many Americans have died to protect. It does not have a thing to do with affirming the values of this country.
    White separatists have the same right of protest. And while I’m not equating them with the students protesting, I could with regard to the authors logic that appears to equate unpopular protesting with affirming Patriotism.

  13. What is missing here is some interest in objectivity. Whatever your chosen public protest protocol, you had better do your homework to make it sure the protest is legit.

    If you are looking for serious criticism of race-related matters you pretty much have to turn to African Americans. The subject is otherwise too taboo to touch.

    Here is a critical rundown on Colin Kaepernicks protest by Larry Elder,
    http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/…

    And behind it a larger look at the real issues and the relevant numbers from Professor Walter E. Williams,
    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewill…

    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewill…

    For the idealist or nominal idealist out there, if you are serious you had better be willing to question your own sacred stories. The popular liberal perspective on race that all things eventually boil down to To Kill a Mockingbird is rarely accurate.

  14. Trump apologist right-wing white boys expecting us to believe they can tell us anything whatsoever about how black Americans and patriotism squares. That’s rich.

  15. A follow-up on my earlier comment.

    That earlier comment offered a critical perspective on the race issues motivating the soccer protest. It did so with links to relevant commentary from African American authors (who sadly appear to be alone in having PC-clearance to be critical on such matters).

    I should have been more explicit there, though. In particular do I think that the teachers at the World of Inquiry could offer such critical perspectives on these issues and in doing so try to provide some balance in the understanding of the soccer players? No, I do not. The World of Inquiry is highly likely to be anchored in a narrow liberal idealistic perspective (just like City).

    For additional perspective over the last 2 years the New York Times has had a lot of coverage on race issues. And as follow-up to their coverage they have often been blasted in the Readers Picks comments for their liberal biases (beginning with their Ferguson coverage). This coming from an apparently very educated, non-conservative readership.

    The additional point of relevance are is that African American critics of liberal policies have focused their attention on the unhealthy results for African Americans (as in the case of Prof. Williams that was cited earlier). Idealism might make for a nice thought exercises but in reality it rarely helps.

    The final note is on the responses. My comment received 15 dislikes and I doubt any of them bothered to read the (short) articles. The subsequent comment was an insult directed at my entry without any relevance (which of course didnt mention Trump). That irrelevant insult received 14 likes. This I would argue is a solid observational slice of the workings of the Left. Narrow, angry, and tending to get off on insults.

    Another good reason to register – and think – as an Independent.

  16. Linking to Townhall, the original home of that cesspool of Obama Derangement Syndrome and Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Columnists Michelle Mulkin? Ann (“Psychotic Neo-Nazi with Great Hair”) Coulter? Seriously? And posting Townhall on an urban, lefty-alternative newspaper site, and then shocked – shocked! – that someone may take objection? Posting that stuff on this site, my friend, is the original definition of trolling.

    The bottom line is the Black American experience and how this squares with the beliefs in what constitutes “patriotism,” is wholly different enough from the white American experience and how that squares with “patriotism.”

  17. No Troll Whisperer,

    Providing links from Townhall is an indirect commentary on just how far the Left has run from honesty on the race issue. After the extraordinary fiasco of their Ferguson coverage the Times eventually was pressured to provide some critical commentary on some of the problems found within the African American community. To do so they found two African American professors who amongst other things acknowledged that there has been a big very big violence problem within parts of the African American community; that a big motivational element behind the implementing of the Rockefeller Laws came out of the African American community; and finally that problems like illegitimacy can only be handled within that community. A related matter covered in a Scientific American article was that a big motivational element behind the relatively recent efforts to ramp up urban policing in crime hot spots was to reduce violence (including of course murder victims).

    Townhall is a great resource because there you regularly have access to critical opinions on race matters from African Americans. Writers/thinkers like Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell offer great insights with little if any regard for the stifling impacts of political correctness (Steven Pinkers opinion on PC and Pinker also holds Sowell in great regard). You dont have to wait months from a PC-bound operation like the New York Times to catch glimpses of honesty. By the way one of the gems I saw at Townhall was that for over twenty years now the poverty rate amongst married African Americans has been in the single digits.

    For a broadside introduction to the issues of racism (against African Americans) Williams offered this in July,
    http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewill…

    I think the Left and Right are probably comparably full of shit. If people are serious about issues they will have to look for honesty wherever they can find it. Honesty matters.

  18. johnny

    When I see you write to the Jewish people, and tell them — “if [they] want to live [seventy] years in the past, keeping old grievances alive, whether true or false, knock [themselves] out, but don’t infect the rest of us” — then, MAYBE you can talk to me about topics such as liberation theology, and the Right, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

    Also, there is NOTHING that you can possibly tell me about “the godforsaken place the [super-rich, white,] democrats [and Republicans] have created [not only] for blacks,” but for EVERYBODY. So, save your breath, and your super-hyper-racist-rhetoric for those who don’t know any better. I DO.

  21. Community Activists Back School of Inquiry Anthem Protest

    By ALEX CRICHTON Oct 7, 2016

    http://wxxinews.org/post/community-activis…

    In my humble, but staunch view, we ought to be tireder-of-being-sicker-and-tireder than Mother Fannie Lou Hamer was — relative to professional word-wizards, spin-doctors, and damage-controllers attempting to razzle and dazzle us. If the Rochester City School “District [so-called] used this as a teachable moment for students to engage in dialog with each other and adults about the reasons for the protest” — it would be most interesting (to say the least) to find out (exactly, and specifically) what was taught.

  24. Um, no, Ted. Thomas Sowell endorsed Ted Cruz. Too bad; Sowell was once a fine scholar. Townhall is of the far right. The New York Times is at most center-left – and at least they have Ross Douthat and David Brooks as regulars. Lumping the Times with “the left” is like lumping, oh Reihan Salam with Ann Coulter, or Douthat with Pat Buchanan (hey, at least they’re both Catholic): transparently, laughably dishonest.

    The post-war Republican presidents – Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 -their politics are quite to the center of Townhall. At least those guys accepted 1932. Townall is to the right of the even most right-wing president, Dubya. Townhall would make Ronald Reagan puke. At least he detested nuclear weapons and loathed torture and thought there were limits to taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich. No wonder Reagan could never get nominated by this party.

    You’re a little touchy about Trump. Well, you gave him to us. Or is this the party of personal responsibility, except when you’re not? It didn’t start with Palin. Take some ownership.

    Townhall. Ann freakin’ Coulter. Right-O.

  25. No again Troll Whisperer,

    I said absolutely nothing to endorse Townhall, other than the fact that they offer honesty along the race front. For people looking for honesty on taboo topics you are going to have to be open to a variety sources. Sowell and Williams offer plenty of it on race matters.

    Dont you get tired of getting off on the same presumptions? I didnt say anything about Trump or the Republicans. And you conclude that I gave you Trump.

    From my experience this is symptomatic of the insult-prone depth of the Left (which perhaps mirrors that found on the Right).

    As a concluding suggestion why not use your actual name?

  26. Johnny and Howard, I’ve deleted your last two comments because you’re insulting each other. That’s not the purpose of our comment section. You can address the issue without insulting one another.

  27. Town Hall is website that features Conservative columnists giving their opinions. So at least you know what you are getting with them.
    The New York Times is a Liberal newspaper that does not separate their opinion section from their news section. So people who are unaware of their bias believe the things that they write in their news section. which are often patently untrue such as the revisionist history about Ronald Reagan being to the left of the Republican Party today. The fact is that Reagan represented the very Conservative Barry Goldwater wing of the party and was a strong Social Conservative more in line with Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee. He was a strong proponent of rapidly building Americas Nuclear arsenal and it was only when the Russians realized they could not keep up that a historic arms reduction treaty was achieved.
    He was vilified by the media and riddiculed for being a “Cowboy ” and an “Actor” much as Trump is today.
    The Electoral map is much different now and Reagan would face the same uphill battle that any other Republican nominee faces today.

  28. Sowell and Williams are both climate change-deniers. They claim climate change was “invented by intellectuals.” They automatically forfeit the right to be taken seriously on any policy matter. Pathetic.

    “My father would never support Trump” – Michael Reagan (hardly a lib’r). Trump is no Reagan.

    “Town Hall is website that features Conservative columnists giving their opinions.” Yup. Notice the large “C” in Conservative, as opposed to small “c'” conservatives, who value institutions, prudence in foreign affairs and an understanding that society can only exist through a series of social covenants, not prescribed by law per se – in other words, the opposite of what large “C” Conservatives now believe.
    People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Like climate change.

Comments are closed.