December 1967: An Unequivocal Right

An Unequivocal Right

(Track & Field News, December 1967)

by Dick Drake, Managing Editor

Just what is so all-fired important about the fact that Tommie Smith and Lee Evans may elect to boycott the Olympics that it should have created such widespread reaction and discussion?

Could it be that Americans are suddenly becoming more aware and concerned about the plight of and injustices suffered by the US Negro?

Unfortunately not. In fact, Tommie and Lee have been subjected to almost unanimous criticism for their personal convictions--a conviction that sacrificing a valued opportunity to compete in the Olympics may serve a greater purpose in the struggle for equal rights for all black people.

Frankly, I just don't know whether a boycott will effectively provide a forum for the Negro to call attention to the black man's grievances and unhappiness in the US. That I believe is their primary goal rather than the six ultimatums they have handed to the USOC. If I thought the 90 percent of Americans who are not Negroes could in part be persuaded to treat the black man with equality as the result of a boycott, I would support the action 101 percent.

Nonetheless, I defend the unequivocal right of Tommie and Lee--and any other Negro--to boycott the 1988 Olympic Games. Because I believe the Negro has not achieved his rightful equality in the US. Because I believe the Negro must bring his plight to the attention of every American. Because I can't be sure that a boycott will lose more support for the black man than it will gain. And because I can't suggest a better alternative, unfortunately.

It is not to Tommie and Lee that I address this opinion piece but to every American who would unmercifully attack Tommie and Lee because they ask for equal rights for their people.

To compete or not to compete in the Olympic Games comes down to a very basic premise of individual right. It is certainly not a matter of national duty. Yet, their critics would ask them to be Americans first and everything else second when they are not accorded the same human rights of their askers.

Why are so many whites so threatened that they must so unanimously suppress a cry for human dignity? How can they be so selfish? They find it easy to camouflage their real feelings by draping them in sweeping all-American slogans, Olympic ideals and denials of prejudice.

The very fact that so many Americans would deny the Negroes the opportunity to boycott the Olympics dramatizes at least the need for such action and possibly its potential effectiveness in calling attention to the black man's unhappiness.

I hear it this way. "Be a good, quiet, American nigger (even if I'm not a good white), don't disrupt the status quo (since it may challenge my own personal security and happiness), be patient (even if I'm not willing to do anything for you in the meantime), and show you're patriotic by competing for your country in the Olympics (even if I'm not willing to share the same rights I have when you return home to your fatherland)."

I personally have developed tremendous admiration for the courage shown Tommie and Lee, I have gained enormous respect for their willingness to follow through with their convictions and I support their democratic right to utilize the means of a boycott if they believe it will be an effective measure toward fostering attention on their battle for equality for all US Negroes.

Why? Because they're strong enough and sufficiently selfless to stand up and say, "I care." Against tremendous odds.

I suggest those who would be more interested in what the Negro can do for America are precisely the same individuals who would be less concerned in determining what they can do for the Negro as a human being.