I recently had the honor of sitting down with Dr John Carlos for my podcast, The Rematch. I wanted to get the thoughts of the man who made history by protesting in support of human rights on the podium alongside Tommie Smith at the 1968 Olympics. His views are particularly timely given the International Olympic Committee’s intention to enforce its infamous Rule 50 in Tokyo this summer. Under Rule 50, athletes are banned from protesting on the podium, field of play or at ceremonies (they can still express political views on social media or in interviews). It may as well be called the John Carlos and Tommie Smith rule.
It is unclear what punishment athletes will face if they ignore Rule 50 and protest, but in 1968 the US Olympic Committee, under pressure from the IOC, expelled Carlos and Smith from the Games. Carlos told me he is concerned athletes will face similar punishments this year in Tokyo.
“The IOC is standing firm on their position from ‘68,” he said. “They don’t want any type of demonstration whatsoever. They don’t want a social demonstration, moral demonstration or political demonstration. Now, my concern is that the United States Olympic committee initially endorsed the kids and allowed them to stand on their moral character. But my concern is … if any young individuals decide to make a statement, whether the United States Olympic committee will be there to support them, back them, or throw them under the bus”.
Any hope that the IOC has softened over time is dampened by the fact that Carlos has never received an apology for the events of 1968, despite the fact that he and Smith faced death threats and widespread exclusion on their return to the United States.
“I confronted the IOC about an apology and they told me: ‘We didn’t do anything to you. The United States Olympic committee did that to you.’ Which technically is true, but it was under the direction of the International Olympic Committee. The IOC put a mandate on the US Olympic Committee and said: ‘If you don’t kick these guys off the team, we’re going to suspend the whole United States Olympic team.’”
As well as its refusal to apologize to Smith and Carlos, the IOC’s defense of Rule 50 is odd to say the least.
“The mission of the Olympics is to unite and not to divide. We are the only event in the world that gets the entire world together in a peaceful competition,” IOC president Thomas Bach said last year.
“I ask them [politicians and athletes] to respect this mission of the Olympic Gamesand in order to accomplish this mission we must be politically neutral. Otherwise we would end up in this divisive and boycott situation. I ask them to respect this political neutrality by not using [the Olympics] as a stage for their political purposes.”
I find this insulting. Wearing a shirt that says, “Bernie Sanders should have been president” is a political statement. “Black Lives Matter”, on the other hand, is not a political statement, but a human rights statement.
Besides, Carlos told me the idea that the Olympics isn’t inherently political is a fiction to begin with.
“I would tell the International Olympic Committee, first of all, you need to come out the stone age,” he said. “You need to realize that times have changed. People’s visions and people’s views have changed. The people who represent you, you should have a concern about their pain. These are things you have a responsibility to instead of putting up a fictitious statement like this is an a political institution – it’s been political since it’s been there. If it wasn’t political, you would have one Olympic flag and everyone would have the same Olympic jersey on. But you have flags all over the Olympics. What you’re doing is running a dictatorship”
Smith also addressed the issue of athletes from different countries showing solidarity with each other, just as Australia’s Peter Norman did with Carlos and Smith in 1968. Carlos said Norman demonstrated the crucial role white allies can play when they stand in solidarity with Black people, as well as the importance of unity and the moral courage to stand up for human rights. They seem like ideals the Olympics should want to embrace.
Imagine, for example, the message it would send for athletes from around the world to stand together and protest against the violations of human rights happening right now to Palestinians.
Carlos has had 53 years to think about politics, the Olympics and protests. But he does not believe protests and human rights are the main motivations for the IOC. Instead he sees its driving force as something far more basic – and a good deal less lofty.
“We had one of the most dire times in world history with this virus that has been going around,” he said. “And they will force the Games through [despite] the virus. We’re gonna bring athletes from all over the world to host these Games, for [the IOC’s] bottom line … No matter who is at the helm of the International Olympic Committee, they are protecting their interest: money.”
