Olympics, Politics- What's the Difference?

With the Sochi Winter Olympics quickly approaching, Germany just released their colorful uniforms 

 Many are viewing these uniforms as a protest of Russia’s new laws against gay rights. In fact, many athletes are showing their support. From Sweedish high jumper Emma Green Tregaro painting a rainbow on her nails to tow Russian athletes Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova kissing on the podium, everyone seems to be showing that they don’t support these laws.

As it turns out, this was not the first time the Olympics were used to make a political statement. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, bronze and gold medals were stripped from two African American 200-meter dash sprinters. When Americans Tommie Smith and JohnCarlos stepped onto the podium to accept their medals, they were barefoot. They did this to represent the poverty that so many black Americans were struggling with. They also wore necklaces and scarves for those who were lynched and when the Star Spangled Banner played they raised their fists in a black-power solute. These men wanted to make a stand, so instead of boycotting the Olympics all together, they decided that this would make a more lasting impression. Even thought they had their medals stripped, they did make a statement for the Civil Rights Movement.

Even Jimmy Carter used the Olympics to send a message. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he threatened that the United States would boycott the Moscow Olympics if Soviet troops didn’t leave Afghanistan in a month. Sure enough, when this demand wasn’t met, the United States boycotted the 1980 Olympics.

Clearly the Olympics have been grounds for political statements for years, but like many Americans, when I watch the only thing I usually notice is the sports. So should we be more aware of the political statements around us? Should the Olympics be a place of politics?

How They See Me

I’m illiterate. Well, that is according to the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test. Personally, I consider someone literate if they can read and write. However, to be considered literate in the state of Alabama at this time you would need to be able to answer questions like, “A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date?”  To be able to answer questions like these it requires a lot of prior knowledge, not just being literate.

To be able to vote in Alabama, you could only incorrectly answer seven out of sixty-eight questions. Every single person in my American Studies class was considered illiterate by the time we got to question twenty-four. However in Alabama, not everyone had to take this test in order to vote. If your grandfather voted than you were “Grandfathered In” and you could vote without taking this test. This was done to keep African Americans from being able to vote when the laws technically said they could. These people were being judged off of factors they couldn’t control, but doesn’t that still happen today?

I think one example where you are also judged off of appearances is when you apply to college. First of all, they see your grades and the classes you take. From this they can judge whether or not your challenging yourself in the classes you take and how hard you’re working. However, I took a class last year that was considered a lower level than some of my other classes, but I still thought it was my hardest class. So can a college really tell how hard I’m working or how much I’m challenging myself by looking at my grades and classes? They also judge you off of your ethnicity, whether or not you have a family member who attended that school before you, and whether or not you live in the same state as the school you’re applying to. Many of these things a student can’t control either, so is it fair to be judged off of them?

Be Prepared

When my college councilor walked in to my advisory today to meet us, she immediately brought up standardized testing. She told us that she thought there was no point in going to a test like the ACT or SAT unprepared and that most New Trier students participate it some sort of tutoring for these tests.  This didn’t come as some big surprise to me because many parents want to do whatever they can to give their children a leg up in getting into college, including trying to boost their test scores. But does that put the students who can’t afford tutoring for standardized testing at a disadvantage?

For the ACT and SAT, the same test is administered nation wide on the same day so that it is fair and equal for all the students taking the test. However, all students are not going in on an equal playing ground if some students have been given the opportunity to prepare for the test when others have not.

According to both the ACT and SAT websites, they test to see how ready a student is for college. If going in to this test unprepared really is pointless, then wouldn’t these tests actually be testing who is more prepared for the test not college?