The IOC is ignoring its history by banning protest at the Olympic Games

The Olympics afford us the opportunity to learn more about the world. The IOC doesn’t want that.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is intent on bringing you a safe, fair and sanitized slush of sports when the games take place in Tokyo this summer.

The IOC published behavior guidelines Thursday ahead of the 2020 Olympic games banning any and all forms of protest or public demonstration by athletes. It’s an attempt by the IOC to avoid potential controversy, willfully ignoring the importance of sports in effecting change, as well at the games’ own history.

Previous guidelines banning protest or demonstration were vague and didn’t clarify many questions raised by athletes on how and where they could make personal statements about political and social issues. The new rule outright bans any and all gestures outside of press conferences, independent media meetings and social media. The ban includes:

— Displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands

— Gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling

— Refusal to follow the ceremonies protocol.

This broad reading of “protest” circumvents previous IOC rules on “expressing views” and expands them to include any gestures or attire that isn’t directly related to the sport itself. In the announcement, the IOC said the following:

“It is a fundamental principle that sport is neutral and must be separate from political, religious or any other type of interference.”

One of the most iconic Olympic images in history is that of Tommie Smith and John Carlos standing on the podium of the 1968 games in Mexico, fists raised as a statement about the plight of African Americans. They were banned from competing immediately after, but even the IOC recognized the importance of the statement in 2013:

“Over and above winning medals, the black American athletes made names for themselves by an act of racial protest.”

The IOC can’t ignore its own role in being a vector of social and political change. South Africa was banned from competing in the games from 1964-1988, which contributed to the global economic and social pressure that caused the nation to reverse course on apartheid. Any attempt now to pretend that sports should be divorced from social issues is disingenuous at best.

The IOC is correct in that we live in a divided world during difficult times — which is precisely why we need athletes to have the freedom to express their political and social views on the brightest of world stages. Their actions afford the world opportunities to learn about injustices they might not have been aware of and be exposed to cultures they might not otherwise be privy to.

The IOC believes in portraying an idealized world where everyone gets along and there’s no friction — and wants the Olympics to present itself as such. Instead, it should champion the ideal of a world where we can deal with differences and disagreements with open ears, open hearts, and basic respect for each other to better humanity. The first step is allowing athletes to bravely shine a light on injustices, regardless of what reprisal they might face at home.

By forcing athletes to parrot the IOC’s “uniquely positive message,” it removes us from not only the strength of the athletes taking part, but their struggles too. It flies in the face of the IOC’s own definition of “Olympism”.

“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

History is rarely defined by what’s easy — and the IOC squandered an opportunity to further their own mission by taking the easy way out.