For this latest entry in the BallHype Spotlight Series, we tapped two fantastic writers: TheStarterWife of Black and Gold Tchotchkes and Signal to Noise of, um, Signal to Noise. Both have been involved in the excellent Deadspin Book Club. Here, they'll debate the notion of whether Olympians should feel compelled to speak out on China's human rights record and Darfur while competing in Beijing. Enjoy.

Signal to Noise: I suspect we agree with the concept of athletes being politically active, aware, and making statements regarding the Olympics. I suppose any particular difference would be on whether or not they actually should. There are a bunch of qualifiers regarding this particular Olympiad and the conditions on the ground in China that make this a really tough thing to say "yes, those competing ought to say something about China's abominable human rights record" without hemming and hawing.

Obviously, China's human rights record, past and present is hideous. It has an economic hand in Darfur, there is the little matter of Tibet, government by one-party rule (I hesitate to call it completely Communist because it has mutated the biggest elements of capitalism into it; going beyond what we traditionally think of as Soviet-style Communism), its record with Falun Gong and other religious protesters, and I can still remember watching TV coverage of Tianemen Square in 1989.

But should athletes be compelled to actually speak out on these things?

TheStarterWife: Yes.  These three sections from the "Fundamental Principals of Olympism" in the Olympic Charter state -

2.  The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of the human dignity.
 
Human dignity. Peaceful society.

When the IOC decided to award the 2008 Summer Olympics to China, they looked past the basic tenets of their own mission, and it is up to the athletes speak their conscience and reclaim the spirit of the Games.

5.  Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

When the host country not abide by this declaration, it is up those who will be center stage - the athletes - to speak up for all of the citizens who have been silenced.

S2N: The IOC looked past the basic tenets of its own mission decades ago with the bribery scandals of the 2002 Winter Olympics. This is a body more concerned with its own contracts and monetary intake than abiding by its own rules. But I don't believe it becomes the obligation of the athlete to speak in the absence of the IOC's morality.

I go back to the this basic idea: how knowledgeable is the average athlete of geo-politics? If it's akin to the average American, it may not be a heck of a lot -- and is uninformed political protest really that much better than saying nothing at all?  In no way am I opposed to athletes speaking out on China's faults, if they feel the need to, but the charter also brings this up as Rule 51:

"No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

The athletes will be able to say what they please to the press, though. The Olympics has transformed over the years from an appeal to the best of international sport into a cash grab, an amoral enterprise concerned with money, but it's on the participating nations rather than the athletes making up individual federations to object.  The USOC has pulled out of Olympiads it has objected to (1980 in Moscow due to Communism; the Soviets responded in kind in 1984), those responses have a larger influence.

TSW: You should check out this reverse pyramid on the IOC's site.

Don't you think that Olympic athletes have an obligation as citizens, when they are representing the whole U.S. of A., to at least educate themselves on basic world events and controversies?

I don't believe that an Olympic athlete has to speak up if they do not feel comfortable doing so.  It skirts too close to being tools for propaganda for my liking.  But at the same time, any athlete who takes the podium draped in the American flag, who talks about what an honor it is to represent this country, should use the freedom of speech our country guarantees to speak their conscience.

If the though behind holding the Games in China was that it would help open up that country to democratic ideas, what is the point if we are never going to see those freedoms in action?

S2N: The pyramid tells you a lot about the IOC's priorities, only confirming what we all suspect these days.

As for athletes having the obligation to educate themselves on basic world events and controversies: no, I don't believe they have that obligation. I'd like it if every one of them felt they did and followed through on it, and I'd love it if they were secure enough and comfortable enough to speak their conscience while representing the U.S abroad.

The argument behind opening up China to democratic ideas with an Olympic Games hews less towards the outward protest model and more towards the idea of having outside media scrutiny. China is placing restrictions, obviously, on where the media can go while the Olympics are on-going, and you can argue that the scrutiny has only resulted in further crackdowns on press freedoms. But that pyramid tells you so much: broadcasters are higher up on the totem pole to the IOC than the participating athletes or ordinary people.

But the thought was never really about opening up China to democratic ideals: it was about placating a burgeoning superpower with a massive population and making money hand over fist by entering that superpower's media markets and profile.

No athlete is going to risk his or her participation for a medal they've dreamed of all of his or her life to make a political statement. The athlete that does is courageous, but so many of them are focused from a young age on their sport and achievement in it. I remember listening to this particular spot on NPR a couple months back -- this generation's athlete is different.

If they are politically active, they see it as separate from their lives as athletes; there is a fundamental disconnect between their lives inside and outside the stadia/arenas. You and I don't see it this way at all; we'd like to believe those things are inseparable for everyone. There is enough pressure to be an Olympic athlete, expected to win gold, without feeling like you have to speak for those who cannot in the wake of injustice.

I suspect a lot of the desire for athletes to be socially aware and speak out on important issues is borne out of a bit of nostalgia as well. Many of the examples given by columnists revolve around Muhammad Ali's refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam War (which had nothing to do with the Olympics) and John Carlos' and Tommie Smith's black-gloved fists in the air on the medal podium in Mexico City in 1968. We forget that at the time, those three were pilloried for their political statements.

There is too much risk for the modern athlete -- sponsorships, negative coverage, IOC sanctions -- for me to say that Olympic athletes must be compelled to speak out on China's atrocities.

TSW: I've been struggling with a reasonable counterpoint to your statement, "There is too much risk for the modern athlete -- sponsorships, negative coverage, IOC sanctions -- for me to say that Olympic athletes must be compelled to speak out on China's atrocities" for more than a week.

The truth is, I really do not have an argument. An individual athlete does not have to make a stand and risk losing what they have worked towards their whole life.

But in my heart, I feel like protest at the 2008 Summer Olympics - in any form - is the right thing to do.

S2N: We don't disagree on that; we both believe speaking out on these issues would be the right thing to do. Problem is, not everyone is Ira Newble, who went to Darfur and wrote up a petition protesting China's involvement in funding the genocide.

I wish today's athlete would say more, but we're both realistic enough to know what will happen to them if they speak out.  There is also something about holding others to higher standards than you hold yourself, and I cannot imagine doing anything other than trying to be completely myopic and focus on winning in competition, rather than the world of turmoil swirling outside, were I an Olympic-level athlete.