Taking a knee

Putting a hand deep into the punch at a party is a deviation from polite behavior that typically does not signify much else except, perhaps, retrieving a ring, grabbing a piece of fruit, trying to shock, offend or amuse people. Such an act is generally considered uncouth but apolitical: it does not express an idea or opinion, but only reveals at most an urgency to snag something, or convey an attitude or emotion.

The sight of some NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem produced a great hubbub. The players who began using the gesture intended to have an impact on social policy in this country. While they certainly displayed a particular attitude and probably a lot of emotion, they also had a point to make: they were using a form of speech. The main argument against the gesture in the context of NFL games is that it undermines American values by showing disrespect for one of the expressions of our national identity and by potentially encouraging others to express such disrespect.

A useful reaction to a deviation from a norm, when that deviation does no physical harm to anyone but yet might express an idea, is an open discussion about the matter, including an inquiry into its significance. We ought to determine what the gesture means—what the statement is—and then, given that the inquiry reveals that an important problem should be solved, pursue a solution. There is no evidence to suggest that NFL players who take a knee during the Anthem want to undermine the American system of government or destroy our shared values. The practice itself causes no physical harm to anyone. There is ample evidence to suggest that such protests are meant to improve an aspect of our nation. Those who disagree with such assertions—typically references to social injustices—or the manner by which they are expressed, can simply ignore the displays and in silence show their disregard. That reaction is powerful enough.

Discussing and debating the arguments for and against a particular social or political point of view is always more constructive than restricting the peaceful expression of that point of view. Organizations that regulate the behavior of players on the field can employ and have employed sanctions against players who indulged in excessive celebration after touchdowns. Those organizations could pass and enforce a regulation against kneeling during the National Anthem. But forcing people to comply with a regulation that stifles free speech (the point of this kneeling is an expression of opinion) may for the short term apply a veneer of tranquility, but runs counter to American ideals.

People who disagree with a particular point of view or the body language meant to represent that point of view can react with outrage. And many have. But a protest to a protest often produces another protest—one that becomes more intense and directed increasingly toward the people who hold an opposing view rather than toward the controversial issue that began the altercation. Bashing heads together is yet another approach, and it may work finally to silence the vanquished. But what will likely remain on all sides at the end of the overt hostility is a hatred that does not affirm the values of our nation and does nothing to advance the social cohesion that most of us wish would prevail.