I remember sports columnist Steve Buckley, now with the Athletic (the Times’ captive sports publication) from my halcyon days in Boston. Now he’s issuing badly-reasoned, ethically blind sports commentary from a national platform. Yecchh.
As a special annoyance, his poorly-reasoned observations on sports figures weighing in on national controversies are under a misleading headline: “Aaron Rodgers, Sophie Cunningham speak out. Caitlin Clark doesn’t. Either way, they lose.” I assumed from those words that Steve was going to echo my long-time position regarding narrow-range celebrities in general: “Shut up and sing/dance/act/ dribble/run/kick/pitch.”
But no.
“…Sports people (and this includes sports media people) who weigh in on political and social issues can count on being inundated with anonymous directives that they should “stick to sports.” It’s a mystery who these people are who feel empowered to tell others to stick to sports. The mere utterance suggests somebody with a doctorate in government affairs, or who perhaps has served in Congress or the diplomatic corps. The hypocrisy is at once comical and frightening. We like it when our athletes offer their opinions on this or that issue, except when we disagree with those opinions. (Stick to sports!) And athletes who choose not to play this silly parlor game are dismissed as cowards. At the risk of boring you with seventh-grade civics, but to use a kitschy sports term to make the point, this would be a good time to have a Turn Back the Clock event that teaches and celebrates the protections of the First Amendment. And if you happen to be a member of a championship team who’s been invited to the White House, go ahead and go. Or don’t go. Do that First Amendment thing and tell everyone else to screw off. For sports people who want to take a stand on this or that issue and who are prepared to deal with the avalanche of positive and negative commentary that ensues, go right ahead. For athletes who choose to say nothing, allow them that right. Why does everything have to be so complicated?”
Because things are complicated, Steve—now I remember why I skipped your work at the Boston Herald—and because they are complicated, most sports celebrities have nothing of value to contribute in understanding them. Celebrities do, however, have outsized metaphorical megaphones that give their usually simple-minded opinions far more influence on the public than is healthy for democracy and the quality of civic discourse. I know why Buckley has his own simple-minded view of this issue: sportswriters are, with few exceptions (not him, obviously), also unqualified by intellect, education, experience and skill, to comment publicly on political and social policy matters. Like all journalists, they think they are smarter than they are. This column is a useful piece of evidence to the contrary.
The inspiration for Buckley’s piece was Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Aaron Rodgers criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci after the Ethics Villain repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a Senate hearing last week, plus Sophie Cunningham‘s public statements regarding trans-females competing in women’s sports, along with fellow WNBA star and team mate Caitlin Clark’s refusal to get drawn into the controversy. Right off the bat (that’s a sports metaphor), Steve trips on his sneaker laces by mixing apples and oranges (a fruit analogy).
Ethics Alarms 
Nice essay. Providing clarity is a wonderful thing.
Aaron Rogers, in contrast, has no more standing to critique Fauci than the drunk sitting at the end of the bar. Like the drunk, he can go on social media and opine on things he knows nothing about, but he shouldn’t.
Given what Fauci’s policies tried to do (and succeeded in the sport), it seems like, by what I understand you’re saying, Rogers would have standing. Maybe because he wasn’t specifically targeted (or was he? I think he’s a bit crazy and says crazy things, but he was always pretty outspoken against the COVID stuff). Would Novak Djokovic be a better example in this case?
To be fair, Rogers was punished for refusing the vaccine, ostensibly due to known allergies. He was directly affected by Fauci’s actions. That might give him some relevant standing on the issue.
Except that the thrust of his critique was the Fifth Amendment issue. That’s a lot more complicated than the vax issue. And the punishment, also to be fair, was not Fauci’s call, or his doing. Here’s what Rogers said:
Asked about about “his mindset” coming into the quarterback’s last seasons, Rogers said,
“I’m going to plead the fifth. Like that absolute coward, Tony Fauci. Are you kidding me? You got a pardon and you pleaded over 100 times at the White House? What are you scared of, Tony? I thought you were the science. I thought, ‘I am science,’ and you get up there and you can’t answer a question? What are we doing?”
That was it.
Jack: “Aaron Rogers, in contrast, has no more standing to critique Fauci than the drunk sitting at the end of the bar.”
I don’t quite agree with this. I am no fan of Aaron Rodgers, but he faced a great deal of criticism for not getting the covid vaccine. He was attacked over his goofy views on health and his opposition to the vaccine was lumped in with those. So, yeah, I am not going to fault him too much for gloating
Same goes for Kyrie Irving:
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/stephen-smith-offers-surprising-apology-141754401.html
He would have every right to criticize the policies that cost him $13 Million.
So, while I don’t disagree with your general distinction, Aaron Rodgers might not be the right place to draw that line.
-Jut
But again, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, his attack on Fauci was based on his Fifth Amendment assertion, not Rogers’ issues with Wuhan vax enforcement.
A good discussion of Fauch and the Fifth: Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Congress Puts His Pardon In Jeopardy
Yes, but I don’t know that you can parse it like that. Fauci was called in to explain his actions (e.g. Wuhan vax enforcement) and Fauci said one thing (I take the Fifth). So, if Fauci had talked about vax enforcement, Rodgers could respond, but, if Fauci dodges that very question, Rodgers can’t mock him for being a weasle?
-Jut
Mock and denigrate him for everything in his diary, and all the lies and contradictions that are a matter of record. Every American who isn’t Trump Deranged and is civically literate can and should do that. But Fauci was genuinely acting under his lawyer’s recommendation by taking the Fifth: this is truly the least of his offenses.
Fauci could have said, and would have, I assume: “I had no power to enforce Vax compliance. That wasn’t my decision and I did not have such power.” That answer would be correct. He wasn’t a coward for not wanting to say that.”
I disagree.
I think his lawyers were stupid to advise him (if they did) to take the Fifth.
if I were Rand Paul, I would have told him that he has been pardoned from possible prosecution and he will be under arrest until he decides to answer and he take it up with the Court in a habeas petition.
alternatively, I would have told him that his little introductory statement functioned as a waiver of his 5th Amendment privilege and he can go to jail without passing go until he either testifies or gets a Habeas Writ.
the fact that his lawyers gave him such advice to put him in that kind of precarious position is enough to cast the stink-eye at them.
and, the fact that Fauci talked about a perjury trap tells me one thing: he did not want to be put into a position where he would have to tell the truth. Because that would mean that he would have to admit that he lied.
you have convinced me that Aaron Rodger’s was completely within bounds mocking Fauci for taking the Fifth. Mocking his opening pitch on the other hand? That would be a cheap shot
-Jut