In a recent interview with UConn Today, PRRI Public Fellow Ruth Braunstein, a professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut, discussed the psychology of social protest and outlined various arguments about why one should or should not protest. “When the response to that protest is not to engage on the actual issue but to instead talk about whether they protested appropriately, it’s a way of changing the subject. It means that instead of spending the 15 minutes you get with a journalist talking about your issue – as in the NFL protest on racial injustice – you’re spending that time talking about whether the protest itself, the form they used to talk about that issue, is appropriate,”Braunstein explains. “It is a powerful strategy that can be used by both opponents and by people in power who might feel threatened, to change the subject, take the air out of a protest situation, and make it so nobody is paying attention to the reason you’re actually out there and instead think about whether you were acting appropriately.”
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has maintained that Kaepernick’s social justice focus hasn’t kept him off the field. Kaepernick appears to disagree and has filed an official grievance against the league, alleging collusion to keep him from playing. “I think if a team decides that Colin Kaepernick, or any other player, can help their team win, that’s what they’ll do,” Goodell recently told reporters. “They want to win, and they make those decisions individually, to the best interest of their club.” In response, Kaepernick’s lawyer, Mark Geragos, took a crack at Goodell and some of the players who were on the field in 2018: “Anybody who believes that will believe that Mark Sanchez was a better choice, or some of the other, how shall I put it delicately, people that were well past their prime that were signed this year.” |
