Staff Reports
The recent Olympic events have provided plenty of material for political and cultural commentary, particularly as they pertain to athletes using their platforms for activism. The debate over whether international sports should serve as a stage for personal and political expression is reignited every few years, and this time, it’s figure skater Amber Glenn who finds herself in the spotlight. Glenn, known for her political outspokenness, stirred controversy by declaring her pansexual identity and critiquing what she perceives as a lack of LGBTQ rights in America.
Glenn’s approach has raised eyebrows, not only because of her self-proclaimed “wokeness,” but also due to the overshadowing of her athletic performance. Instead of focusing on the sport that brought her to the world stage, she chose to highlight a narrative of victimhood in a country where LGBTQ individuals have significant rights. This shift in focus seems to have cost her dearly in public support. Many Americans turned away from her, particularly when her individual performance did not meet expectations, resulting in her placing 13th in an event she once stood a chance to win.
It is one thing to be proud of one’s identity and advocate for rights, but it is another to use a unifying event like the Olympics as a platform for divisive rhetoric. The Olympic Games traditionally promote unity and national pride, values that seem at odds with the critical stance Glenn has chosen. Her decision to pivot from national representation to personal advocacy has prompted backlash, illustrating a disconnect between her message and audience expectations. Americans traditionally rally behind their athletes, backing them in triumph and failure, as long as these athletes respect the platform they’ve been given and the flag they represent.
Comparatively, one can look at American hockey player Quinn Hughes, who has managed to capture the right balance. His measured appreciation of representing the United States amidst fierce competition reflects what many believe to be the Olympic spirit. It’s not about denying personal beliefs but rather prioritizing the collective over the individual during such prestigious events. Hughes managed to convey genuine patriotism without the need for political commentary, keeping the focus on the sport and the team.
The irony is not lost when juxtaposing Amber Glenn’s experience with that of another figure, Eileen Goo, who chose to represent China despite her American upbringing. Goo’s choices raise questions about loyalty and integrity.
In the grand tapestry of the Olympics, athletes are given a rare opportunity to represent something greater than themselves. It’s clear that the audience responds best when athletes embrace the spirit of international unity and national pride. While individual identity and beliefs are important, using the Olympic stage to critique one’s own country can lead to backlash rather than the support these athletes might desire.
