News

After he reached the Super Bowl, Colin Kaepernick’s racial justice protests helped expose US views toward sports activism

Published

1 month ago

February 8, 2025

The Conversation

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.

A Black activist wearing chains, surrounded by other protesters, calls for an end to police brutality. — Activists supporting players’ right to protest appear outside a hotel where NFL meetings were being held on Oct. 17, 2017, in New York. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

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.”

An NFL player kneels on the sidelines of a football field. — Dontari Poe of the Dallas Cowboys kneels during the playing of the national anthem on Sept. 13, 2020, in Inglewood, Calif. AP Photo/Ashley Landis

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.

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

News

Advance Auto Parts to Close All California Stores Amid Restructuring Efforts

Published

2 days ago

March 10, 2025

Hal Machina

In a significant shift for the automotive retail landscape, Advance Auto Parts has announced plans to close all remaining locations in California by mid-March 2025. This decision is part of a larger restructuring initiative aimed at addressing ongoing financial struggles within the company. The announcement was made in November through a federal WARN notice, which provides affected employees with a minimum of 60 days’ notice to prepare for the impending job loss.

Advance Auto Parts

The ramifications of this closure will be profound, with more than 1,600 workers set to lose their jobs as Advance Auto Parts shuts down its remaining 137 stores across the state. The closures began in early February and will follow a broader consolidation strategy that impacts over 725 locations nationwide.

The decision to close these stores is largely driven by a significant downturn in consumer demand. According to the company, fewer drivers are opting for vehicle repairs, contributing to a challenging market environment. This trend was starkly illustrated in the company’s recent financial report, highlighting an operating loss of $820 million in the fourth quarter of 2024.

Shane O’Kelly, President and CEO of Advance Auto Parts, stated, “During 2024, we initiated transformative actions to reposition Advance for long-term success and value creation.” This statement underscores the urgency of the company’s restructuring efforts and its commitment to adapt to the market’s evolving landscape.

As part of its comprehensive plan, Advance Auto Parts intends to consolidate its distribution operations, reducing the number of centers to 12 larger facilities by the end of 2026. Furthermore, the company aims to open 60 market hub locations by mid-2027, which could potentially help streamline operations and improve efficiency in a challenging retail environment.

The closure of all California locations signifies a substantial change in the automotive parts sector, marking the end of an era for many consumers who have relied on Advance Auto Parts for their automotive needs. As the company navigates these changes, the goal remains clear: to emerge stronger and better positioned for sustainable growth in the years to come.

For employees and consumers alike, this transition brings uncertainty, but it also represents a critical phase of re-evaluation and adaptation in the face of shifting market demands. The coming months will be pivotal as Advance Auto Parts implements its restructuring plan while supporting its affected workforce.

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

News

Arizona Senate Passes Landmark Bill to Reform Housing Regulations

Published

4 days ago

March 8, 2025

Rod Washington

man in black shirt wearing yellow hard hat pushing barrow. Housing — Photo by Mikael Blomkvist on Pexels.com

In a significant move aimed at addressing the ongoing housing crisis in Arizona, the state Senate has passed Senate Bill 1229, a piece of legislation that could transform the way municipalities regulate home designs and development standards. This bipartisan bill passed on March 5, 2025, with a narrow vote of 16-13, attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans who are united in their objective to enhance housing affordability in the Grand Canyon State.

Key Provisions of Senate Bill 1229

One of the most notable aspects of SB 1229 is its proposal to prevent municipalities from mandating shared amenities that require a Homeowners Association (HOA) for maintenance. This change is seen as a step toward safeguarding homeowners’ rights to decide the features, structure, and design of their properties without being subjected to burdensome regulations.

Moreover, the bill aims to prohibit cities from requiring certain elements such as screening, walls, or fencing on residential properties. It will also establish boundaries on how cities can regulate lot sizes and building setbacks. These provisions are designed to empower homeowners and help make housing more accessible.

Addressing the Housing Crisis

The initiative comes in light of a severe housing crisis that has plagued Arizona, making homeownership increasingly elusive for many residents. The language within the bill highlights the ongoing struggle for citizens in obtaining affordable housing: “It has become virtually impossible for many citizens of this state to achieve the American Dream of owning their own home.”

Supporters assert that the current highly-restrictive regulations contribute to this crisis and that SB 1229 presents a commonsense solution for families, teachers, first responders, and young professionals who have found themselves priced out of the housing market.

Bipartisan Support and Community Impact

Notably, the bill garnered a rare coalition of support from both parties, with nine Republicans and seven Democrats voting in favor. This broad backing could play a crucial role in advancing the bill to the House, where it may have a better chance of avoiding a veto from Governor Katie Hobbs.

State Senator Shawnna Bolick, a Republican representing District 2, expressed that this new legislation is a much-needed remedy to the housing challenges faced by many Arizona families. She emphasized that it aims to help working-class citizens secure homes that meet their needs and budget.

Echoing these sentiments, Democratic Senator Analise Ortiz shared her own struggles in the current housing market. “At 31, I cannot afford to own a home where I was born and raised and currently govern,” she stated. Ortiz’s personal experience underscores the urgency for legislative changes that prioritize affordable housing options for all residents.

Conclusion

As Arizona grapples with a pervasive housing crisis, Senate Bill 1229 represents a pivotal step towards unlocking new possibilities for homeownership and easing regulatory burdens that have long stymied development. By promoting flexibility in housing regulations, this legislation aims to pave the way for a brighter future for countless residents seeking to realize their dream of homeownership in Arizona.

The upcoming discussions in the House will be crucial in determining the fate of this bill. As passionate advocates for housing reform continue to support this initiative, many Arizona residents will be watching closely to see how it unfolds.

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Health

Daylight saving time and early school start times cost billions in lost productivity and health care expenses

Daylight saving time disrupts sleep, leading to increased heart attacks, accidents, and mental health issues. Advocating for permanent standard time and later school start times could significantly enhance public health and reduce economic costs.

Published

4 days ago

March 8, 2025

The Conversation

Daylight saving time kicks in on March 9, 2025, but some say it leads to more heart attacks, depression and car accidents. Lord Henri Voton/E+ via Getty Images

Joanna Fong-Isariyawongse, University of Pittsburgh

Investigations into the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster revealed that key decision-makers worked on little sleep, raising concerns that fatigue impaired their judgment. Similarly, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill resulted in a massive environmental catastrophe. The official investigation revealed the third mate, in charge of steering the ship, was running on too little sleep, among other problems.

While these specific disasters were not caused by daylight saving time, they are conclusively linked to fatigue, based on postaccident investigations and reports. They underscore the well-documented dangers of sleep deprivation and fatigue-related errors. Yet a vast body of research shows that every year, the shift to daylight saving time needlessly exacerbates these risks, disrupting millions of Americans’ sleep and increasing the likelihood of accidents, health issues and fatal errors.

Imagine a world where one simple decision – keeping our clocks aligned with the natural cycle of the Sun – could save lives, prevent accidents and improve mental well-being. It’s not just about an hour of lost sleep; it’s about how small disruptions ripple through our health, our workplaces and even our children’s futures.

I’m a neurologist who specializes in sleep health. I’ve seen firsthand the negative impacts of poor sleep; it has enormous personal and economic consequences.

Yet despite overwhelming research supporting better sleep policies – such as delaying school start times to align with adolescent biology and the adoption of permanent standard time – these issues remain largely overlooked in public policy discussions.

Sleep deprivation comes with real costs

Chronic sleep deprivation does more than leave people tired. It costs an estimated US$411 billion annually in lost productivity and health care costs. Poor sleep leads to workplace mistakes, car accidents and long-term health issues that strain businesses, families and the economy as a whole.

Fortunately, there’s a fix. Smarter sleep policies – such as permanent standard time and later school start times – can boost efficiency, improve health and save lives.

In a classroom setting, students take an exam. — Sleep-deprived teens have lower test scores and graduation rates. skynesher/E+

Up before dawn

Teenagers are the most sleep-deprived age group in the U.S. Multiple studies and surveys show that anywhere from 71% to 84% of high school students report getting insufficient sleep.

This is largely due to early school start times, which force teens to wake up before their biological clocks are ready. If you have a teenager, you probably see it every day: The teen struggling to wake up before sunrise, rushing out the door without breakfast, then waiting in the dark for the school bus.

More than 80% of public middle and high schools in the U.S. start before 8:30 a.m., with 42% starting before 8 a.m. and 10% before 7:30 a.m. As a result, some districts have bus pickups as early as 5 a.m.

Teenagers are going through a natural shift in their circadian rhythms by about two hours. This shift, driven by hormones and biology, makes it hard for them to fall asleep before around 11 p.m. The bodies of teens aren’t wired for these schedules, yet schools and society have designed a system that forces them to function at their worst.

Declining scores, drowsy driving and depression

Sleep-deprived teens have lower grades and test scores, more car crashes caused by drowsy driving, more alcohol and drug use and higher rates of depression, anxiety suicide and aggressive behavior, including carrying weapons.

Along with the health benefits, studies have found that moving school start times to 8:30 am or later could add $8.6 billion to the economy within two years, partly by increased graduation rates.

While concerns about increased transportation costs exist, such as the need for additional buses or drivers due to staggered school start times, some districts have found that optimizing bus routes can offset expenses, making the change cost-neutral or even cost-saving. For instance, a study in Boston found that reorganizing bus schedules using advanced algorithms reduced the number of buses needed and improved efficiency, which allowed high school students to start later and better align with their natural sleep cycles. This change not only supported adolescent sleep health but also saved the district $5 million annually. https://www.youtube.com/embed/OR6il9otpqM?wmode=transparent&start=0 Studies show that daylight saving time does not reduce energy use.

More heart attacks, car wrecks and suicide

Every March, most Americans shift their clocks forward for daylight saving time. Studies show this change disrupts sleep and leads to measurable adverse outcomes, including a significant increase in heart attacks. These effects linger for days after the shift, as sleep-deprived workers struggle to adjust.

The mental health impact is also severe. Suicide rates increase in the weeks following the switch, particularly for those already vulnerable to depression.

Unlike daylight saving time, standard time follows the body’s natural circadian rhythm, which is primarily regulated by exposure to sunlight. Our internal clocks are most stable when morning light exposure occurs early in the day, signaling the body to wake up and regulate key biological functions such as hormone production, alertness and metabolism. In contrast, daylight saving time artificially extends evening light, delaying the body’s release of melatonin and making it harder to fall asleep at a biologically appropriate time.

Studies have found that adopting permanent standard time could prevent up to 5,000 suicides annually by reducing seasonal depression, decrease errors, injuries and absenteeism in the workplace and make roads safer, potentially preventing 1,300 traffic deaths each year.

Times are changing

The U.S. tried permanent daylight saving time in 1974. It was so unpopular that Congress repealed it within nine months.

Russia tried it too, in 2011, but switched back three years later. The United Kingdom dropped permanent daylight saving time in 1971 after three years, and Portugal in 1996 after four. All of these countries found that the switch caused widespread public dissatisfaction, health concerns, more morning car accidents and disrupted work schedules. No country is currently on year-round daylight saving time.

These examples provide real-world evidence that permanent DST is undesirable due to public dissatisfaction, safety concerns and negative health effects – all three countries attempted it and ultimately reversed course. Since 2022, there has been renewed debate, largely driven by former U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s Sunshine Protection Act, which aims to make DST permanent.

However, the name is misleading because it doesn’t “protect” sunshine but rather eliminates critical morning light, which is essential for regulating circadian rhythms. Major health organizations, along with the National Safety Council, strongly oppose permanent DST due to its well-documented risks.

There are signs that suggest the U.S. is finally waking up to these problems. Out of 13,000 school districts, 1,000 have independently adopted later school start times. California and Florida have enacted laws requiring high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. California’s mandate went into effect in 2022, and Florida’s is set to begin in 2026.

Permanent standard time and later school start times are not radical ideas. They’re practical, evidence-based solutions based on human biology. Implementing these changes nationally would require congressional action. However, current federal law already allows states to adopt permanent standard time, as Arizona and Hawaii have done, setting a precedent for the rest of the country.

Joanna Fong-Isariyawongse, Associate Professor of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.