News
After he reached the Super Bowl, Colin Kaepernick’s racial justice protests helped expose US views toward sports activism
Betina Cutaia Wilkinson, Wake Forest University
Back in 2012, quarterback Colin Kaepernick was one of the NFL’s most popular stars. He led the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl and was just a few plays away from winning the title and lifting the Lombardi Trophy.
But America’s focus on Kaepernick’s athletic success waned in 2016. That’s when he began to kneel before games during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” to protest the deaths of young Black men at the hands of white police officers.
They included Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, two unarmed Black men killed by police in the summer of 2016.
“To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way,” Kaepernick said in The Guardian newspaper. “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Kaepernick’s activism, coinciding with the reemergence of the Black Lives Matter movement, received varied responses.
Some NFL players, like Kaepernick’s then-teammate Eric Reid, imitated Kaepernick’s actions, generating a wave of anti-racist activism – not just in football but in other sports, too, like women’s basketball. Others, including several NFL executives, responded with vitriol and hate.
A recent study I conducted with colleagues Lisa Kiang and Elizabeth Seagroves examines American attitudes toward sports activism, providing insight into the stark responses to Kaepernick’s advocacy and those of other athletes.
Making sense of the varied responses
We surveyed 207 college students and 33 residents in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where I teach, to examine their views on racial justice activism among professional athletes.
We found there were three general perspectives.
One group supported the sports activism and tied it to changing the status quo. People in this group back athletes’ ability to serve as activists and role models, and they hope the protests generate meaningful sociopolitical change.
“I thought it was very necessary and good,” said one participant in the study, referring to athletes’ activism. “I think that if they can use their platform for something good, they should.”
When we asked about Kaepernick’s activism in 2016, these participants lauded him for his courage.
They felt Kaepernick’s protests, along with the Black Lives Matter movement, helped raise awareness of racial injustices in the United States.
Participants reject racial justice advocacy
Other participants in our study expressed support for athletes’ right to protest, but they rejected their racial justice advocacy.
They said athletes have the freedom to say what they think. And they tied the protests to the United States’ commitment to freedom of speech. But they disapproved of kneeling during the playing of the national anthem, labeling it as disrespectful.
“I think most of it is good. If you have a platform, you should use it,” one participant told us. “However, when misinformation is spread, it becomes bad.”
Several participants felt the conflation of the national anthem with protesting racial injustices was misleading and wrong, and this participant considered Kaepernick’s protest “misinformation.”
Kaepernick’s activism elicited similarly mixed feelings at the time. A majority of the public viewed Kaepernick’s refusal to stand as unpatriotic. Most, however, also supported his right to free speech.
In May 2018, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell barred athletes from protesting on the sidelines during the national anthem, but he gave them the option to remain in the locker room during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” if they preferred. The move came after players had protested racial inequality and police brutality for two seasons.
“We want people to be respectful of the national anthem,” Goodell said, according to ESPN. “We want people to stand – that’s all personnel – and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion. That’s something we think we owe. But we were also very sensitive to give players choices.”
In June 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s death and years into Kaepernick’s activism, Goodell apologized to players and reversed the policy, saying, “We were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier.”
But team protests varied throughout the league.
Some teams such as the Green Bay Packers and Jacksonville Jaguars, at least on one occasion, remained in their locker rooms during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
Some teams acted uniformly with the exception of one or two players. Dallas Cowboys player Dontari Poe was the only person on his team to kneel during the playing of the national anthem.
The fact that not all players protested, and that teams had distinct approaches to protesting, is not surprising given the public’s varied responses to athlete activism.
Complete disapproval
A third group of participants in our study disapproved of sports activism entirely. And these participants often accompanied their criticism by saying that athletes strayed from their role as entertainers.
“I don’t think it’s good because it’s giving people a reason not to like a professional athlete when their job is to play a sport. They are not politicians and haven’t been able to prove they can make a change,” said one participant.
For example, when responding to WNBA player Skylar Diggins-Smith’s call for the imprisonment of the police officers in Louisville, Kentucky, involved in the 2020 shooting death of Breonna Taylor during a nighttime apartment raid, one participant said: “It’s not for the average citizen to call for police officers to be investigated. It’s just not OK for a professional athlete to push their agenda like that.”
Our study, much like other studies, found that people who are white, older and politically conservative are more opposed to racial justice activism in sports than their counterparts.
What does this mean?
As seen in our study, U.S. views toward sports protests are tied to the role people believe athletes should play in society.
For some, athletes can and should be role models; that includes by raising awareness of racial injustices. For others, athletes should only express their perspectives under certain conditions.
And yet other Americans believe athletes are performers whose only role should be to entertain.
Still, there’s no doubt Kaepernick’s activism changed the playing field, even if his NFL career suffered. After the 2016 season, he was never picked up by another team.
Kaepernick’s activism inspired people to attend protests and donate to political causes.
The NAACP has asked college athletes to avoid attending schools that are dismantling their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives.
Coach Steve Kerr and All- Star Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors regularly voice their political views and draw attention to injustices.
Several sports associations – the NFL, NBA, WNBA and NWSL – have implemented social justice initiatives and councils that strive to mobilize voters and educate the electorate on political issues.
Colin Kaepernick’s activism may have ended his Super Bowl dreams, but his legacy extends far beyond the game of football.
Betina Cutaia Wilkinson, Associate Professor & Associate Chair of Political Science, Wake Forest University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
News
How healthy is Sodastream?
The SodaStream Sparkling Water Maker is a device that forces carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (stored under pressure in a cylinder) into water, making it sparkling (fizzy)
Sodastream machines have been gaining popularity in recent years as an alternative to store-bought soft drinks. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they also offer several health benefits compared to traditional sodas.
Reduced Sugar Intake
One of the most significant health benefits of using a Sodastream machine is reducing sugar intake. Traditional sodas are loaded with sugar, and excessive sugar intake can lead to weight gain, obesity, and other health problems such as Type 2 diabetes. With a Sodastream machine, you can control the amount of sugar you add to your drink, allowing you to enjoy a refreshing beverage without the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption.
No Artificial Sweeteners
Many store-bought soft drinks contain artificial sweeteners, which can have negative health effects such as headaches and digestive problems. Sodastream machines, on the other hand, allow you to use natural sweeteners such as fruit extracts, honey or agave nectar, giving you a healthier and more natural alternative.
No Preservatives
Another advantage of using a Sodastream machine is that you can avoid preservatives commonly found in store-bought soft drinks. Preservatives such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate have been linked to health problems such as cancer and allergies. By making your own drinks, you can avoid these harmful additives and enjoy a healthier, preservative-free beverage.
Eco-Friendly
In addition to the health benefits, using a Sodastream machine is also environmentally friendly. Traditional soft drinks are packaged in plastic bottles or cans, which contribute to environmental pollution. With a Sodastream machine, you can reuse the same bottle multiple times, reducing waste and helping to reduce your carbon footprint.
Variety
Finally, Sodastream machines offer a wide variety of flavors and options, allowing you to customize your drink to your liking. You can mix and match different flavors or create your own unique blends, giving you a healthier and more enjoyable alternative to traditional sodas.
In conclusion, Sodastream machines offer several health benefits compared to traditional store-bought soft drinks. By reducing sugar intake, avoiding artificial sweeteners and preservatives, and being eco-friendly, they offer a healthier and more sustainable alternative to traditional soft drinks. Moreover, with a wide variety of flavors and options, you can customize your drink to your liking, making it a fun and enjoyable way to stay healthy.
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
