The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is not an arm of any government or nation, yet it wields tremendous power and global influence. Philosophy student Walker Edwards argues about the role the IOC should play in matters of diplomacy in this February 2014 column from the Daily Nebraskan, student newspaper of the University of Nebraska.
Read it here: Edwards, "Olympics should use diplomatic power to reward progress, not discrimination”
- Edwards draws comparisons between the 1936 Olympics hosted in Berlin, Germany during the Nazi regime and this year’s Olympics in Sochi, Russia. What is Edwards’ point in making the comparison? Do you think the comparison is valid? Why or why not?
- Edwards concedes that “we can’t pretend that we have the moral high ground against Russia.” Who is the “we” in that sentence, and what is the context? What might be Edwards’ rhetorical purpose in making the concession? Is it effective? Why or why not?
- Read (or re-read) Maya Angelou’s essay in Chapter 17 of your text. How is Angelou’s essay relevant to Edwards’ argument? Based on her essay, how might Angelou have responded to Edwards? Explain your reasoning.
- The Olympics is an international event and a hugely prestigious and influential one. Edwards argues that “the IOC should put its diplomatic weight into rewarding progress, not hypocrisy” on human rights issues. Do you agree? Using Edwards as your They Say, write an essay in which you argue your position on how the International Olympic Committee should approach such matters of diplomacy.
They Say I Blog 
Good article!Very well pointed!
LikeLike
Walker Edwards asserts in this article that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has failed in following the guidelines of its own Olympic Charter. Edwards tells the reader that the sixth of seven principles to be upheld by the institution is “routinely ignored”. Edwards says that the sixth principle involves the exclusion of nations who present discrimination of race, religion, politics, gender or other such topics in the selection of Olympic team members or peoples of said teams nation. Edwards cites that their have been many cases where the sixth principle was blatantly misused. Examples presented by Edwards include the 1936 Olympics where Berlin was allowed Olympic participation even though the nation showed discrimination against its Jewish citizens, the 2013 Olympics which were held in Russia even though the nation had recently implemented “anti-gay bill 436-0.” Yet in 1964, South Africa was banned from the games due to its apartheid and was not readmitted to the games until 1991 when the apartheid was removed. These examples were used by Edwards to show that the IOC does implement the sixth principle in some cases, like with South Africa, but does not in others, like in Berlin and Russia. Edwards urges that the Olympics is an opportunity to highlight “global unity” through athletics where things which divide people worldwide are not focused upon. Edwards appeals to the reader that mankind must move on from the previously presented hypocrisy surrounding the games so that the games can fulfill their role following the guidelines set by the IOC.
Although I agree with Edwards up to a point, I cannot accept his decision to include America negatively in his argument. Edwards presents information about how America both shows progress and discrimination through examples such as Virginia allowing gay marriage and then Kansas allowing the choice to deny service to LGBT people. Edwards presents America as a nation divided through this example, this should not be included as support in his article. America leaves issues such as this up to individual states to decide what stance they have, this does not lead to a nation divided but a nation that has decided to accept multiple views on a topic. Though Kansas has a strict stance, LGBT people are allowed to move away from that state, the bill was passed by representatives which were voted on by citizens of the state so, the stance is the accepted democratically decided upon view of the state. The difference between the inclusion of Russia’s faulty LGBT situation and the inclusion of America’s LGBT situation is that Russia, a non-democratic nation, simply implemented its discriminatory laws, where as America allows the freedom to choose which state a LGBT individual is in. I am not saying that America does not discriminate against LGBT people, America has made such a thing a state issue and not a nation issue. Therefore, I believe that Edwards should not be calling for America to be punished the same way he calls for Russia to be punished for discrimination. Russia needs to be punished for its discrimination, but America is making progress to become a more accepting nation and this is what Edwards specifically overlooks by saying, “the IOC should put their diplomatic weight into rewarding progress” and not directly relating it to the advancements made by America.
LikeLike
Walker Edward starts off stating the seven principles, how the six the principle is always broken. Athletes from all over face discrimination whether they are gay or not and even by their religion,race, and ethnicity. Then he talks about the 1936 Olympics, asking how could a country hold the Olympics, then force Jews into the ghetto. Athletes should be able to compete for the greatest achievement without having the to face discrimination.
LikeLike
In comparing the 1936 Olympics held in Berlin,Germany during the Nazi regime to the Olympics held in Sochi, Russia Edwards was making the point that Hitler’s hate, discrimination, and violence toward Jewish people were no different than that of Russia’s hate, discrimination, and violence toward homosexuals. His point is valid because it’s evident that both Hitler hated Jews and that over all most Russians hated homosexuals, and both nations displayed behavior that defies what the Olympic stands for.
When Edwards says “we can’t pretend that we have the moral high ground against Russia.” The “we” in that sentence, is referring to America or america’s society as a whole. His purpose for this was to shed light on our own actions and to encourage support for gays in places like Kansas.
Maya Angelou’s essay in chapter 17 is relevant to Edwards article because it also sheds light on discrimination against a specific group by a nation, in this case the united states and the past treatment of African Americans in the U.S. Angelou would agree with Edwards, because she was actively involved in the civil rights movement and believed in the equality of people.
I agree with Edwards when he says, “the IOC should put its diplomatic weight into rewarding progress, not hypocrisy” because they have the power to make a difference. If they make rules for the Olympic athletes, they should abide by them as well. The IOC can and should ban any nation that doesn’t abide by such rules. Why would they want to be affiliated with nations that go against everything the Olympics are about any way?
LikeLike