Cunningham has standing to weigh in on the biological males in women’s sports because she is a woman who has competed in sports most of her life and now does so professionally. Similarly, women’s sports advocate Riley Gaines is a legitimate spokesperson for the the same position Cunningham supports because she experienced the unfair results of letting “chicks with dicks” win women’s sports competitions. Cunningham and Gaines have actual expertise and valuable perspectives to offer the public.
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. Because the NFL star is a celebrity, too many people think that means his opinions on everything are special. Fauci’s attorney answered Rogers’ rant by telling him that 1) he didn’t know what he was talking about, and 2) he should stick to football.
Check, and check.
Buckley isn’t wrong about everything, to be fair. He is quite right that Clark shouldn’t be criticized for choosing not to enmesh herself in the trans-cheaters controversy. She has enough problems already, as she is constantly targeted by the WNBA’s anti-white, anti-“cis” lesbian thugs. If she chose to weigh in, however, like Cunningham, she would have useful experience to draw from.
Steve Buckley can’t seem to figure out the key distinction between athletes irresponsibly abusing their celebrity and those using it well. Like most people, he defaults to Rationalization #24, Juror 3’s Stand (“It’s My Right!”). Yes, the First Amendment gives everyone, including bigots, fools, ignoramuses, sportswriters and quarterbacks, the right to say anything without government penalties. That does not make an athlete ethical, responsible, competent or admirable for mucking up public discourse with disproportionately influential pronouncements just because he or she can. This is Ethics 101. Steve apparently skipped that class.
In another example of his inability to distinguish between ethical uses of free speech and unethical, he gives us an ignorant comparison:
“This is probably a good place to roll out the after-dinner speech about how there’s a long, glorious history in the United States of athletes taking a stand on social and political issues, the gold standard being Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists in a Black Power salute at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Or when Boston Red Sox legend Ted Williams devoted a portion of his Hall of Fame induction speech in 1966 to expressing the hope that the time comes when “the names of Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson in some way can be added as a symbol of the great Negro (Leagues) players that are not here only because they were not given a chance.”
I’ll skip that idiotic speech, Steve. Tommie Smith and John Carlos hijacked what was supposed to be a non-political global event celebrating sports to make their own meat-axe political statement that at best applied to the United States alone. I compare it to the NFL kneeling fad. It was unethical: they couldn’t be indicted, of course, but they should have been banned from the Olympics. Ted Williams, a retired baseball great who was a legitimate authority on the sport he had devoted his life to, used his Hall of Fame induction speech to tell the Hall of Fame and the nation that great black baseball players who had been prevented from playing in the Major Leagues because of racial discrimination deserved to be in the Hall as much as he did. Ted knew what he was talking about, and had earned legitimate credibility on that subject. His was a perfect example of a sports celebrity using his outsized megaphone responsibly and ethically—in fact, it might be the best example. “Teddy Ballgame” educated the public and admonished the baseball community, his community.
When athletes can do that, all power to them. Buckley’s confusion reminds us, however, that our sports celebrities are not, on other matters, usually worth paying attention to, and should keep their uninformed, emotion-based, inadequately researched and considered opinions to themselves.
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