international journal of the history of sports. henderson. 'crossing the line: sport and the limits...

8/9/2019 International Journal of the History of Sports. Henderson. 'Crossing the Line: Sport and the Limits of Civil Rights Pro

1/22

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Liverpool John Moores University]On: 22 February 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773557660]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of the History of SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713672545

Crossing the Line: Sport and the Limits of Civil Rights ProtestSimon Henderson aa Co. Durham.,

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2009

To cite this Article Henderson, Simon(2009)'Crossing the Line: Sport and the Limits of Civil Rights Protest',International Journal of theHistory of Sport,26:1,101 121

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09523360802500576URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802500576

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713672545http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802500576http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802500576http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713672545


2/22

Crossing the Line: Sport and the Limits

of Civil Rights ProtestSimon Henderson

Scholars have ably considered the extent to which sport has been, and continues to be, a

force for racial progress. What has been less comprehensively explored, however, are the

unique difficulties encountered by athletes who have attempted to use sport to promote

civil rights activism. Black athletes, and sympathetic white teammates, have faced

considerable obstacles as sportsmen who supported the civil rights struggle. Sport has

restricted the ability of sportsmen to successfully engage in civil rights activism. In the

belief that it has provided an example of racial progress for the rest of society, in fact,

sport has resisted the civil rights movement. This article explores the difficulties faced by

athletes who attempted to be part of that movement.

Scholars have ably debated the extent to which sport has provided and continues toprovide a force for racial progress. What have been less comprehensively explored,

however, are the unique difficulties encountered by athletes who attempted to use

sport to promote civil rights activism. Black athletes and sympathetic white

teammates faced considerable obstacles when using their position as sportsmen to

support the civil rights struggle. Particularly instructive were the problems faced by

athletes who supported racial justice in the 1960s and who lived in the midst of a

revolutionary struggle for civil rights in wider society. The same sporting creed that

preached the ideal of racial equality on the playing field worked to restrict the ability

of sportsmen to successfully engage in civil rights activism. Believing that it provided

an example of racial progress for the rest of society, the sporting world resisted the

civil rights movement. In some important respects, therefore, the sporting arena

actually lagged behind the civil rights movement which was affecting wider society.

This article seeks to explore this dynamic by focusing on the reactions to racial

protests surrounding the Olympic Games of 1968 and on the college campus in the

late 1960s.

Simon Henderson, Oakenshaw, Co. Durham. Correspondence to: [email protected]

The International Journal of the History of SportVol. 26, No. 1, January 2009, 101121

ISSN 0952-3367 (print)/ISSN 1743-9035 (online) 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09523360802500576


3/22

The perception of sport as a force for social progress is heavily ingrained in

American culture: By 1920, most Americans thought that organized sports provided

the social glue for a nation of diverse classes, regions, ethnic groups and competing

political loyalties. Following the onset of the Cold War, sport became increasingly

politicized and was used as a way for Americans to reassure themselves about theirdestiny and project their values on a global scale. [1] It was important that sport on

the international stage could be used to show the superiority of American democracy

in competition with the Soviet Communist system. Beyond the integration of

American sports and the end of the Cold War, the popular perception of sport as a

positive racial force remained. A 1996 poll conducted for US News and World Report

revealed that 91 per cent of Americans believed that participation in sports helped

people get along with different racial groups. [2]

This idealized view of sports as a positive racial force has, however, been attacked.

Harry Edwards, the sociology professor who provided the most vocal expression of a

black athletic revolt in the late 1960s, argues against the notion of sport as a wholly

positive force for racial progress. Edwards asserts:

America had a headlock on the black community, and on the white community,which essentially amounted to this mythology that blacks had made it in athletics,that it was the one area where it was not the colour of your skin or the status insociety, but only how well you played the game [that mattered]. [3]

The reality was and continues to be more complex than the ideal. In his controversial

workDarwins Athletes, John Hoberman argues that a sports fixation damages black

children by discouraging academic achievement in favour of physical self-expression,which is widely considered a racial trait. Hoberman strongly attacks the romanticized

view of sport as a force for positive racial progress, and instead argues that sport has

been detrimental to black America. He does concede that integrated sporting

competition can promote better race relations, although adding that the social benefits

can be transitory and difficult to confirm. Hoberman goes on to assert that

optimistic and unexamined assumptions about the effects of integrated sport have

always encouraged the idea that the sports world is a kind of racial utopia. [4]

Hartmann argues that sport and race inhabit a contested racial terrain. He asserts

that the sporting world represents a social site where racial images, ideologies, and

inequalities are constructed, transformed, and constantly struggled over rather than a

place where they are reconciled or reproduced one way or the other. [5] Douglas

Kellner refers to this phenomenon as a double-edged sword. Focusing specifically on

Michael Jordan, he argues that sport can be used as an arena from which to project a

positive image of blackness, while also serving to perpetuate negative racial

stereotypes associated with blackness. Jordan was viewed as a positive black symbol,

a role model for young people who transcended race and integration in American

society. Consistently, however, his blackness is overemphasized and has been cited

as a determining factor in his gambling and in his alleged links with organized

crime. [6]

102 S. Henderson


4/22

The extent to which sport as an institution was capable of improving race relations

and the experiences of black athletes who pioneered racial integration in sport has

been studied in some depth. These studies are useful in their ability to highlight the

important place of sport in the construction of racial identity, especially the extent to

which this identity is contested. The sporting arena has offered great opportunity butsimultaneously has restricted the scope of that opportunity and perpetuated

restrictive racial stereotypes. Much previous study has focused on the symbolic

importance of the integration of sport in America and the impact of national sporting

race heroes such as Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson. What has received much less

attention is how both international and college athletes black and white sought to

use sport as a vehicle to engage in the civil rights struggle. Not only in a symbolic

way, to further racial understanding and respect by playing the game, but to use their

position to press for tangible victories in the civil rights movement. The difficulties

they encountered in doing so bring a fresh dimension to the relationship between

race and sport.

Boycotts and Protests 1968 Olympics

The 1968 Olympics in Mexico City yielded great success for the United States track

and field squad, with a number of world record performances. Nevertheless, it is the

clenched fist salute of Tommie Smith and John Carlos on the winners podium that

has dominated the historical legacy of the games. The two black sprinters were

supporters of the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). Led by Harry

Edwards, the OPHR attempted a black boycott of the 1968 Olympics in order todramatize racial inequality in sport and the wider society. It drew support from

several black and some white athletes who aimed to use the international sporting

stage as part of the civil rights struggle. Douglas Hartmann has dissected the story of

the OPHR and what inspired the actions of Edwards and his supporters. The iconic

image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos initially provoked strong criticism in the

sports world. Hartmann explains, though, that in the long term their actions had an

indirect impact on the racial reforms instituted by the US sporting establishment in

the 1970s. [7]

In her study of the black athletic revolt, Amy Bass focuses on the role of the 1968

Olympics in the construction of the black athlete. She argues that the Smith and

Carlos podium salute can only be understood within the context of the relationship

between race and sport in America. Their actions provide the background to the

complex cultural landscape that black athletes such as Michael Vick and Tiger Woods

now inhabit. [8] With differing emphasis, both Bass and Hartmann ably explain the

story of the black athletic revolt and specifically its impact on the 1968 Olympics.

What other studies fail to fully analyse, however, are the difficulties athletes faced

when trying to use the sporting arena to engage in civil rights activism. The

discussion below is not exhaustive but rather seeks to explore these difficulties within

the context of the 1968 Olympics.

Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 103


5/22

Throughout this article there is reference to material drawn from telephone interviews

with athletes who were involved in the events of the late 1960s. Alongside archival

material, these interviews offer a broader perspective on the difficulties facing black and

white athletes who engaged with the wider civil rights struggle. Recording their experiences

some 35 to 40 years after events, these athletes provide an interpretation of their own roleand wider events in light of a more rounded understanding of racial activism in sports.

These interviews offer a different dimension. The athletes now have a broader perspective

than they did as young men in their late teens and early 20s focussing on the more imme-

diate concerns of the day. Olympic high jumper Dick Fosbury recalled that at the time of

the prospective Olympic boycott in 1968 he broadly supported the civil rights struggle and

had many teammates who were black with whom he sympathized. Fosbury recognizes,

however, that during events at Mexico City he was very young and rather ignorant of all

that was going on politically. It is only some time after events that he can consider their

significance in a broader sense. [9] Cleve Livingston, a member of the Harvard rowing

crew, was another who supported the efforts of black athletes to further the civil rights

struggle. Reflecting on events 35 years later, he described the stand of Smith and Carlos as

an affirmative message of both protest and hope. Livingston can now look at the broader

significance of their podium salute and its importance in the context of the subsequent

development of American sports and society. [10] Considered and retrospective views on

the impact of the civil rights struggle on sports offer a different perspective on the

problems faced by athletes directly or indirectly affected by that struggle.

A fundamental difficulty faced by athletes who sought to use sport to engage in the

civil rights struggle was the extent to which such actions were seen by sports

administrators and the public as radical and undesirable. The dominant perceptionwas that sport had offered great opportunities for African-Americans. Joe Louis, Jesse

Owens and Jackie Robinson provided the most famous examples to support a belief

that blacks could rise above racial problems when in the sporting arena. High jumper

Gene Johnson argued that if it was not for the opportunity to excel that sport offered,

top-class African-American athletes would just be anonymous black men trapped in

the system of racial discrimination suffered by the rest of the black population. [11]

Throughout the 1960s it was Jesse Owens who became the most outspoken

proponent of the argument that sport was a force for racial progress. Encouraged by

the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), 38

black competitors refused to participate in an athletics meeting in June 1961 because

the spectators were to be accommodated in segregated seating. Owens was

particularly critical of this action and argued that the NAACP should not be

encouraging athletes to boycott sporting events. He believed it was not the place of

athletes to get involved in racial politics.

The idea of boycotting the Olympics was a significant threat to the prevailing ideal

of sports role in promoting harmonious race relations. This method of protest,

however, originated before 1968. Mel Whitfield, the three-time African-American

Olympic medallist, advocated that black athletes boycott the 1964 Tokyo games

because of the failure of the US to guarantee civil rights for all of its citizens. [12]

104 S. Henderson


6/22

A 1964 letter to NAACP chairman Roy Wilkins also suggested a boycott of the

Olympics by black athletes as a useful means of protesting against racial injustice.

Wilkinss brief reply to the correspondent suggested that this was not feasible because

of the lack of enthusiasm among athletes for such a move. These athletes, Wilkins

argued, feel that they achieve some positive good by participating and there is muchto be said for this. [13] Four years after Wilkinss letter, the idea of boycotting the

games was still viewed as something unrealistic, and for many wholly undesirable.

It is clear that a boycott of the Olympics was seen as a radical form of racial protest.

What was particularly disturbing was the possibility of previously compliant black

and white athletes moving the civil rights agenda inside sport. In the NAACP files

associated with sport in the 1960s, the aforementioned track and field meeting in

Houston is the only documented evidence of the organization encouraging black

athletes to engage in political action. The associations papers focus mainly on local

officials protesting about segregation of clubs, stadiums and swimming pools. The

majority of the activism did not involve the athletes themselves. For example,

integrated teams from Tennessee and Florida participated in the Walker College

Institutional in Jasper, Alabama, in 1966 despite the fact that black citizens were not

permitted to attend. NAACP officials protested about the discrimination but black

players continued to participate in the event. [14] Largely regarded as the mainstream

organizational arm of the civil rights struggle, it is instructive that the NAACP held

such a stance. When Martin Luther King sat beside Harry Edwards at a December

1967 press conference called to announce the plans of the OPHR, he did so in order

to show a radical position. By this point in his political career King was searching for

more far-reaching solutions to Americas racial problems; speaking out against thewar in Vietnam, proposing sweeping economic change and supporting a black

boycott of the Olympics were interconnected elements of a radical agenda.

The belief that sport was above politics, and specifically that the sporting arena had

provided black Americans with massive opportunities, dictated the largely negative

view of any boycott attempt. Faith in a racially neutral sporting ideal resisted the

encroachment of civil rights activism. A crucial difficulty for athletes themselves

when deciding whether to boycott the Olympics was the sacrifice that such action

entailed. During the Black Youth Conference meeting at which the boycott was

discussed, former LA Rams player Dan Towler argued that sports had done much to

help the African-American advance and that competing for ones country was a great

honour. This view was certainly supported later by an assistant Olympic coach, Stan

Wright, and the baseball star Willie Mays, both of whom subscribed to the ideal of

sport as a positive racial force that had been beneficial for the African-American. [15]

Long jumper, Ralph Boston, who made a gesture of protest on the podium in

Mexico, had not been prepared to boycott the games and was on record at the time

affirming this view. Boston later recalled: I was not in favour of the boycott . . . and I

guess that was quite selfish. . . . I knew that it would be my last chance and so I

wanted to go. What is interesting about Bostons stance, and his decision not to

support the OPHR boycott of 1968, is the contrast with his earlier activism. Boston



7/22

was among those athletes who refused to participate in the track and field meet in

Houston in June of 1961. [16] Clearly the size of the Olympics and the prestige

associated with winning medals far outweighed a regional tournament in Texas. The

athlete who wanted to engage in activism had to weigh the cost to his or her career.

Many who participated in the OPHR boycott of the allegedly racist New YorkAthletic Club in early 1968 still went to the Olympics.

Boston recognizes that his attitude at the time was single-minded and quite selfish.

For him the Olympics were too important to miss because of a boycott that he can

now see was unlikely to happen. In discussions with other teammates, Boston

formulated an opinion that to boycott was simply to open up an opportunity for

someone else to go to the games. White long jumper Phil Shinnick missed out on the

Olympic team with a below-par performance at the US trials. Shinnick was one of the

original members of the OPHR but now feels that the push by Harry Edwards for

athletes to boycott the Olympics was too much to expect. Shinnick was in the Air

Force at the time and was threatened by his superiors that if he spoke out about

racism in sports and wider society he would be court-martialled. He felt that the

tensions surrounding his involvement with the civil rights struggle affected his

performance. With the benefit of a longer perspective on events, Shinnick argued that

it is actually through involvement in competition that athletes give themselves an

opportunity to make a stand on important issues. [17]

Specific to the problems faced by athletes who wished to engage in civil rights

activism was the global situation in the lead-up to the Mexico Olympics. Both

black and white athletes were less inclined to support a boycott once the

International Olympic Committee (IOC) had withdrawn South Africas invitationto the games. One of the demands of the OPHR was that the South Africans be

banned from the Olympics because of their domestic system of racial apartheid.

IOC president Avery Brundage held a position which firmly supported what

Edwards and others regarded as a one-dimensional view of the relationship

between race and sport. Brundage believed sport to be a force for social and racial

progress and supported South Africas participation in the games. He endorsed

sports ability to influence the political realm, to bring peoples and nations

together. He firmly rejected, however, any interference by politics in the sporting

world. Brundage was a vocal opponent of any kind of racial segregation in sport

but he was not especially sensitive to discrimination outside of sports. [18] The

issue of South Africas participation was something that was grasped by many

white and black athletes as internationally significant. Harvard and US coxswain

Paul Hoffman reflected that the situation in South Africa represented a clear issue

of racial discrimination. Reflecting on the work of the OPHR in a broader

context, Hoffman recognized that the demands of the organization were eclectic.

Calls to boycott the NYAC and to reinstate Muhammad Ali as heavyweight

champion did not represent issues of racial injustice on the same level as South

African participation at the Olympics. There was not a logical parallel between the

different demands and concerns of the OPHR. [19]

106 S. Henderson


8/22

When the IOC gave in to pressure and withdrew its invitation to the South

Africans, the likelihood of a widespread boycott of the games therefore diminished. It

could be argued that pressure created by athletes was the key reason the IOC chose to

ban the South Africans. In this sense we could regard the South African ban as an

example of athletes successfully bringing the civil rights agenda inside the sportingarena and effecting change. Certainly Edwards represented events in this way. Indeed,

a letter to Edwards from the African National Congress in South Africa, dated 5

March 1968, stated that your views and support for our struggle against apartheid

give us tremendous encouragement that all is not lost regarding public opinion in the

USA. [20] The wording of the letter is, however, telling. The main role played by

Edwards and his supporters was to stimulate debate inside the USA.

The key reason behind the decision not to invite South Africa lay in the stance of

the Mexican organizing committee. The potential boycott of a games including South

Africa by not only African nations but the Islamic world and the Communist bloc

created a serious problem. The Mexican Olympic hosts were determined that South

Africa should not attend the games. Attempting to project the image of a defender of

Third World countries and determined to cast off the perception of Mexican

subservience in relation to more developed nations, the organizing committee

intensively lobbied the IOC to ban the South African team. Indeed, Mexican

President Daz Ordaz stated that the dignity of the nation depended upon ensuring

that those South African bastards should not come to the games. [21] In one of a

number of letters to members of the Olympic community, Pedro Vazquez, chairman

of the Mexican organizing committee spelled out Mexicos stance. Vazquez argued

that the Olympics were an extraordinary opportunity presented to the Mexicanpeople to receive the youth of the entire world an opportunity now threatened by

the political interests of a minority that has done nothing to provide equality of

opportunity for its young athletes in its own territory. [22] When the IOC finally

withdrew South Africas invitation, it was largely due to pressure from the Mexicans

and significantly reduced the likelihood of a black boycott of the games.

Increasingly worried that no boycott would then lead to problems associated with

racial protest at the games themselves, the Olympic authorities held a consistent

approach designed to neutralize dissent. The final problem faced by athletes who

wished to engage in civil rights activism which is to be considered in relation to the

1968 Olympics was provided by the stance of sports administrators. Uniquely

troubling for the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) was the position of the

Harvard eight rowing crew. Six members of the crew released a statement in July 1968

asserting their moral efforts to support our black teammates in their efforts to

dramatize the injustices and inequities which permeate our society. [23] The rowers

made it clear they did not support the boycott or any specific form of protest planned

for Mexico City but were lending symbolic support to the black cause. The prevailing

notion that sport provided an arena where white and black competed together as

equals and promoted racial progress was threatened by the rowers position. It was

one thing to isolate potential black protesters as angry young men influenced by a



9/22

radical political agenda, but quite another to deal with middle-class white athletes

from a leading academic institution.

The crews effort to use their position as athletes to dramatize the racial problems

facing America was consistently challenged by the US authorities. So ingrained at an

institutional level was the belief that sport was a positive racial force that there was noattempt to address the legitimacy of the protesters grievances. Instead the USOC

pursued a campaign designed to neutralize dissent and head off protests. The

Harvard crew released a brief explanation of their stance to the whole of the Olympic

team in the form of a set of questions and answers. Accompanying this document

were letters to other members of the team inviting a discussion about the role of the

US team in relation to the racial crisis in America. Paul Hoffman, the coxswain for

the rowers, later recalled that when they were in training in Colorado before going on

to Mexico City, the USOC Board of Consultants attempted outreach towards the

athletes through a liaison committee. The crew were lectured about the

responsibilities associated with competing for their country. Essentially the USOC

representative who met with the rowers attempted to sound out their ideas and

motivations, and tried to ascertain the possibility of their protesting in any way.

Again looking back years after the events of 1968, Hoffman described the reactionary

nature of many in the US sports establishment and the extent to which they

contradicted their own ideal of sport as a force for racial and social progress. [24] The

USOC president, Douglas Roby, brought the activities of the Harvard crew to the

attention of chairman of the US Olympic Rowing Committee, John J. Carlin. After

consulting with his colleagues, Carlin prepared a document for all members of the

rowing squad to sign, committing them to not getting involved in racially orientateddemonstrations. This was thought to be less confrontational than the cease and

desist order which had been discussed initially. [25]

Hoffman and other members of the crew continued to face close monitoring of

their activities and, on some occasions, physical confrontation. At the airport before

departing for the games, the crew were rebuked for wearing buttons supporting the

cause of the OPHR. Hoffman was threatened by the US boxing coach, who said

he would knock his head off if he continued to speak with his boxers and promote

the cause of the OPHR. [26] It was Hoffman who would go on to give the Australian

sprinter Peter Norman the OPHR button he wore on the podium in support of Smith

and Carlos an act for which the coxswain narrowly escaped suspension from the US

team. Black and white athletes sympathetic to Smiths and Carloss stand called a

meeting on hearing the sprinters had been suspended from the team and expelled

from the Olympic village for their protest on the winners podium. Jesse Owens was

sent by the USOC to speak to the athletes and dissuade them from any further

protest. At the meeting Owens objected to the presence of white athletes, among

them Hal Connolly and Ed Burke. Owens felt the white athletes had no place at the

meeting and wished to speak only to the black athletes about any future protests.

Connolly later argued that the views of Owens were consistent with a mindset that black

athletes could be dissuaded from further protest if they were isolated from unhelpful

108 S. Henderson


10/22

political influences. Connolly recalled negative comments made at the time to the effect

that he was in the twilight of his career, had little chance of winning a medal and as such

was simply trying to make a name for himself. It was this which may have made Owens

particularly averse to his presence. Black sprinter Lee Evans, also present at the meeting,

now views Owens as a messenger of Avery Brundage. In the context of his sustainedinvolvement with the USOC and writings on the role of sport in society, Owens is

regarded by Evans as a man who was out of touch with the concerns and attitudes of the

young black and white athletes sympathetic to the civil rights struggle. [27]

The USOC was unmoved by the interracial element of the civil rights activism. It

did not want any form of political activism to enter the sporting arena and

consistently maintained this approach both in the lead-up to and during the 1968

Olympics. Athletes who attempted to use their position to engage in the civil rights

struggle faced clear punishment. The USOC statement initially released after the 200

metres medal ceremony stopped short of expelling Smith and Carlos from the

Olympic village. Press chief of the organization Robert Paul recalled that it was

pressure from the IOC that convinced some of the reluctant members of the USOC

board that the black sprinters had to be sent home. The burden of responsibility for

expelling the sprinters was placed at the door of Brundage and the IOC, Paul

concludes: The IOC had exerted its authority. The USOC further accepted the IOC

authority. [28] Brundages unswerving commitment to the traditional ideal of sport

as a positive racial force and resistance to political activism has been highlighted

above. Douglas Roby, head of the USOC, held similar views, however, and was clear

about the consequences for those athletes who tried to protest during the games. This

is revealed in a letter from Roby to Brundage in August 1968. Brundage had writtento Roby a few days earlier highlighting threats made to conduct demonstrations at

the Olympics in Mexico City. Roby closed his letter by insisting that anyone that

participates or that attempts to participate in any demonstration as referred to, will

be immediately suspended as a member of our team and returned to his home at the

earliest possible date. [29] Certainly Roby was influenced by the desire to assure

Brundage that he was in control of matters, but his attitude towards racial protest

through sport reflected the consistent stance of the USOC.

A further example of this stance serves to highlight the great difficulties faced by

athletes who wished to engage in political activism. The fervently held belief that

sport had significantly delivered racial progress severely restricted the freedom of

sportsmen who wished to use their position to get involved in the civil rights struggle.

In November 1968 Roby sent a letter to Harry Parker, the coach of the Harvard crew.

The USOC president insinuated that the crew deserved to finish last in the Olympic

final because of their extremely misguided decision to involve themselves in racial

politics. Roby further asserted that

civil rights and the promotion of social justice may have their place in variousfacets of society, but certainly this sort of promotion has no place in the OlympicGames, and particularly when they are held in a foreign country, which is not

particularly involved in these internal problems of ours. [30]



11/22

This statement summed up the prevailing attitude of sports administrators who were

determined to ensure that the sporting arena would not be intruded into by the civil

rights struggle.

Sports and Civil Rights on the Campus

Although not touched by the extra complications dictated by the international

dimension of the Olympics, college athletes who wished to engage in civil rights

activism also faced many difficulties. Balancing a commitment to team and racial

identity, potentially sacrificing lucrative scholarships, distinguishing discipline from

discrimination and facing often intransigent administrators all posed significant

challenges. Some of the problems experienced by athletes who chose to get involved

in racial politics have been explored by David Zang and David Wiggins. Zangs work

explains the relationship between race and sport in the context of the counter-culture

of the late 1960s. His case studies show the ways in which traditional notions of

sports norms and social rules came under pressure from the cultural changes in

American society. [31] Wiggins studied several incidents of racial turmoil on three

largely white university campuses from 1968 to 1972. Following the stories of black

athletes such as Fred Milton and Bob Presley, Wiggins explains charges of

discrimination that challenged coaching practices and team discipline. These events

caused great disruption in the athletics departments concerned and often forced black

athletes to make a choice between their racial identity and their commitment to team.

Wiggins concludes that by alleging discrimination, black athletes could at once

express empathy with or become actively involved in the black protest movement andconvince themselves that they had not violated their proper role as athletes. [32]

Disputes between white coaches and players and their black counterparts were

highly charged affairs and impacted on the winning potential of a team and the

athletic careers of individual athletes. Considerable misunderstanding and resent-

ment made it very difficult for athletes to retain a unified and successful team while

also engaging in civil rights activism. In the case of Bob Presley at the University of

California, Berkeley, white and black teammates clashed over the extent to which he

was discriminated against. Wiggins found that many of the white players argued at

the time that Presley was simply undisciplined and this is why he was briefly

suspended from the team. Once coach Herrerias resigned and was replaced by his

assistant, Padgett, then the racial tensions was diffused.

The passage of time allows for a broader view of events, however, with new and

more rounded interpretations offered by the principal actors of the time. Altering

subtly the perspective offered by Wiggins in the article cited above, white members of

the University of California basketball team reflect on a power struggle between their

coaches. The story of Bob Presley and the racial turmoil surrounding his suspension

and then reinstatement on the team is given a different dimension by the view that

coach Herrerias was undermined by assistant coach Padgett. Although there remains

disappointment and resentment at the way issues were handled, some of the white

110 S. Henderson


12/22

players now have a more understanding perspective on events. Bob Wolfe recalled the

difficulties that must have been faced by black athletes given athletics scholarships and

dropped into an environment in which it was very difficult for them to succeed. Bob

Abright reflected that Presley was being heavily influenced by political forces which

were not concerned with the well-being of either Presley himself or the basketballteam. [33] This example serves to display the different perspective that is presented by

the athletes involved with the benefit of hindsight and several decades of reflection.

Furthermore, the case studies that Wiggins highlights are dominated by racial

turmoil which was ignited inside athletics departments. Disagreements over team

discipline and personal expression were interpreted in a racial way. Certainly black

athletes faced difficulties adjusting to predominantly white university campuses and

they did face real discrimination, but often their coaches were used as scapegoats.

Coaches who would not let black players wear Afros or facial hair were accused of

racism when they believed they were maintaining team discipline. These cultural

clashes were used as the spark to ignite a wider debate about racial equality which

then spread outside the athletics department. The case studies I wish to explore focus

on black athletes who were prepared to challenge their proper role as athletes a

role that was constructed by the ruling sporting ideology. This dogma maintained

that the athletes role was simply to play the game. Black athletes who wanted to step

off the field and speak about racial politics or use their position as sportsmen to

engage in the civil rights struggle were viewed as threatening. In the brief case studies

of Marquette, Kansas and Wyoming investigated below, the focus is on black athletes

who chose to use their position to lend support to civil rights causes which originated

outside sports faculties. The distinction is important because it serves to show thegreat difficulties athletes faced when engaging in the civil rights struggle even though

they were not focusing criticism on their own coaching staff or white teammates.

Situated in Wisconsin, Marquette University was certainly not at the heart of the

civil rights struggle of the 1960s. Nevertheless, there was a well organized civil rights

movement at the university with an interracial membership. Civil rights activism at

Marquette came under the aegis of Students United for Racial Equality (SURE).

Founded in 1965, it was initially engaged in civil rights marches and specifically

targeted the slow pace of school integration in Milwaukee. SURE members engaged

in a boycott of the public schools system and organized a petition to express

dissatisfaction with the school boards de facto segregation policy. Conscious of their

participation at a Catholic university, SURE leaders emphasized their responsibilities

as both citizens and Christians. [34] In 1968 leadership of SURE passed to more

radical, and predominantly black, personnel and was renamed Respond. Leaders of

the movement directed criticism at the Marquette administration and stated that the

black man in this country does not trust the white man, not even the white liberal,

calling on the university to tackle racism within its own institutions. [35] Following

slow movement from the university authorities, six demands were presented on 8

May 1968. These demands reflected the increasing dominance of black leadership

among the protesters now organized under the name Respond. Establishment of 100



13/22

black scholarships for the economically disadvantaged, the adoption of black history

courses, the sacking of the head of campus security and the hiring of black

administrators reflected similar demands on other campuses. [36]

It was only after the concerted activism of first SURE and then Respond that black

basketball players became involved in the civil rights struggle. They attempted to usetheir own position as successful sportsmen to further the cause of racial equality; they

did not criticize their coach or challenge team regulations. Six black basketball players

became involved in the protest movement because they shared the ideals of the

demonstrators. Joe Thomas later explained that, in his view, Marquette had a

responsibility to reach out to the parts of the surrounding community that were

poorly served by the university. As a young man with a social conscience he recalled

that he felt strongly enough to risk his athletic scholarship to make a stand for greater

equality. The ghetto area five or six blocks down from the campus needed an equal

opportunities and scholarship programme to assist the development of black youth

in the city. An open letter from protesting students to the university officials argued:

Our identity as a Christian University is at stake. If we do not involve ourselves

actively and immediately in response to the racial crisis which faces us, to the urgent

needs of the poor and oppressed of our city . . . we will simply cease to be credibly

Christian. [37]

When a deadline for university action which had been set by the demonstrators

passed, 20 black students, including the six basketball stars, withdrew from the

university. They did not leave because of issues of discipline or disagreement with

coaches or white team members; they did so to draw attention to the cause of

Respond. In fact it was the basketball coach (McGuire) who used his position toencourage university officials to meet the demands of the protest movement. He

realized that the continued success of his programme was severely threatened by the

loss of such talented black players. McGuire met with four of the six players and some

of the Respond leaders, and at the end of the meeting the players agreed to return to

the university. One of the team members, George Thompson, stated: At this time we

feel that as basketball players we can best work in support of this group [Respond] by

remaining in school and working through the proper university channels. [38]

With the help of their coach, the black athletes were able to use their position to

elicit some concessions from the university authorities. A commitment was made to

fund more black scholarships and reach out to the economically deprived local areas.

Although their actions were on the whole successful, the black athletes faced specific

problems in taking the action they did. If McGuire had adopted a harder line, the

players may have been forced to leave the team permanently. They were talented

enough to pick up scholarships elsewhere in the country, but this would have meant

leaving a winning team. Thomas, Thompson and the other players received criticism

from those in the protest movement who felt they returned to the university too

quickly and were mainly concerned with their place on the basketball team. The

leading spokesman for this point of view was Respond leader Gus Moye. He argued

that the university had not gone far enough in its concessions and that those who

112 S. Henderson


14/22

returned had settled for a very inadequate response. The players were also warned

that further protest actions would not be tolerated. Possibly showing bravado after

events had been safely concluded, university president John Raynor nevertheless

asserted that under no circumstances will students be allowed to dictate policy to the

faculty or administration. [39]The black players at Marquette traversed several difficulties when they engaged in

civil rights activism. The negotiating skills of their coach, and the respect in which he

was held, played a key role in the diffusion of tension. The white players on the team

were shocked by their black teammates walkout but the issue was quickly forgotten

because of the swift and successful way that McGuire dealt with it. White team

member Mike Fons recalled that at the time he did not feel that the grievances of the

black players were justified. He believed relations between white and black students

on campus were good and the team dynamic was not affected by the black players

protest because it did not last very long. As young men focusing on the next game, he

argued that they lived for the present. Many of the white players were not really aware

of the demands of the black protesters and did not fully appreciate the racial dynamic

of the time. With the benefit of hindsight, Fons reflected that as a white individual he

can never fully understand the perspective of his black teammates, whose grievances

he now imagines as justified when seen through the lens of their experience. [40]

Contemporaneous with events at Marquette, black footballers at Kansas boycotted

spring practice in order to highlight the racial inequality inherent in university hiring

policies. Again the black players were using their position to join a civil rights agenda

that originated outside the athletics department and they were not criticizing their

own coach. Black player Willie Amison later recalled it was a cause we truly believedin . . . there had to be some kind of statement made by the team players. Not all the

black players were equally committed at the time, however. Indeed one of their

number turned up for practice and began to get changed in the locker room only to

be informed by his white teammates that he was supposed to be boycotting that

practice session. [41] The protest by the football players lasted only one day and once

concessions had been won the players returned to the team. Perhaps aimed

specifically to appease the players, the university announced that a black girl would be

chosen to fill a vacancy on the cheerleader squad. A course in black history was to be

added to the curriculum and the issue of black coaching staff and other African-

American appointments would be addressed at a later date. [42] The black players

were accepted back for the intra-squad scrimmage after a meeting with coach

Rodgers and the team went back to preparing for the next season. [43]

The white players at Kansas, however, were not prepared to allow the civil rights

activism of their black teammates to interfere with the success of the team. Indeed the

ideal of team unity and equality among players was crucial to that success. Had the

black players stayed away from practice for longer, then the issues of discipline and

race may have surfaced as they did on other campuses. There was an acceptance on

both sides of the racial divide, though, that the team would have been adversely

affected, and possibly irreparably so, had the black players missed some games. [44]



15/22

White player T.J. Gaughan later offered the perspective that had this happened it

would have drawn the line and some guys would have put themselves above the team

and that stuff should stay out of the locker room. We are a team and we fight and

bleed together and we go through some tough stuff to get close. Gaughan grew up

with liberal ideas on race and reflected that at the time it was difficult for whiteplayers to understand what black teammates were dealing with. Importantly,

however, he remained of the opinion, held by other white players at the time, that the

team should come first. [45] What is important here is the power that sport has in

the racial dynamic. White and black players were seen as equal in the locker room

and on the field and they bonded as a team with a common goal; however, this sense

of togetherness only extended to the sporting context. Team unity was compromised

by black players whose decision to engage in civil rights activism may damage the

team.

It is fair to argue that the response of the white players was perfectly

understandable. To expect a group of young men in 1960s America to abandon

their own sporting hopes and racial preconceptions to join in the struggle for equality

is naive and idealistic. It is also clear that the black players choice of a negative

protest, in the form of a boycott, was always likely to receive an unenthusiastic

response from white team members whose football career was being disrupted. It is,

however, important to highlight the one-dimensional notion of team. The racially

neutral creed of the sporting arena was turned back against the black players. Their

decision to bring racial politics into the orbit of college sports was deemed to be a

regression from the unity and equality that had been consistently promoted in the

sporting arena.The intention here is not to sit in judgement on the stances taken by athletes but

simply to explore the difficulties encountered by those who wanted to engage in civil

rights activism. What is crucially important in the last case study to be investigated,

however, is the form of protest the black players chose. At Wyoming University black

football players did not boycott practice or actual games; they did not initially

criticize their own coachs rules or even their own institution. The fact that 14

African-American football players were prohibited from wearing a black armband in

order to protest about the racist practice of another university serves again to show

the great difficulties of mixing sport and civil rights activism.

The incident at Wyoming is referred to by both Wiggins and Zang, and James

Michener briefly explains events in his Sports in America. [46] During October 1969

14 black football players became embroiled in a dispute concerning attempts to

protest against the racist practices of Brigham Young University (BYU). The

Mormon Church did not allow blacks in the priesthood and BYU had very few black

students. A year earlier students at the University of Texas, El Paso, were suspended

and had their financial aid withheld after a protest at a track meet with BYU. At

Wyoming, the protests concerning the racial practices of BYU were led by Willie

Black, the chancellor of the Black Student Alliance. It was Black who explained the

racial attitudes of the Mormon Church to the black players on the Wyoming

114 S. Henderson


16/22

Cowboys football team. A letter was delivered to head football coach Lloyd Eaton,

indicating that the Black Students Alliance opposed on moral and human grounds

contests with Brigham Young University and that the BSA would protest any such

contest including the football game with BYU scheduled for Saturday, October 18th,

by wearing of black arm bands. [47] Eaton responded by telling black tri-captain JoeWilliams that he would not allow armbands at practice or on the field of play.

Williams arranged with his black teammates to seek a meeting with Eaton before

practice.

The day before the game, the black athletes went to see Eaton wearing black cloth

armbands; they did not perceive this to be a violation of Eatons rules because they

were not on the practice field or playing in a game. Eaton, however, was furious and

informed the players that they were suspended from the team. The coach remarked

that they could go back on Negro relief or play for the black schools Grambling or

Morgan State. [48] The local community stood behind its successful coach. Although

some faculty and civil rights groups supported the black 14, the university refused to

reinstate the players and university president Dr Carlson asserted that football was

more important than civil rights. [49] At Kansas black players threatened to or

actually did withdraw from practice sessions in order to raise awareness of various

racial problems, both inside their own institutions and in wider society. At Marquette

basketball players briefly withdrew from the university in order to put pressure on

administrators to improve the institutions commitment to civil rights and social

justice. At Wyoming the black players were removed from the team by the coach for

requesting to protest against the racist practices of another institution. The black

players did not attempt to protest against the problems that they encountered ontheir own campus. In fact that campus was not used to civil rights activism. As one

local observer commented, remote Wyoming and its previously sacrosanct campus,

had been caught in the backwash of a revolution of sorts . . . we live some distance

from the hotbeds of great social conflict. [50]

Following an internal investigation of the incident, the university did amend its

policy. Dr Carlson told a faculty meeting we are altering the rule [on

demonstrations] so it applies only to players while directly participating in team

activities. [51] This change indicated recognition that the players had been wearing

their armbands outside practice or match conditions and so the university could be

accused of obstructing the players rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

Still, however, the players were not reinstated. (Eventually some of the players came

back to play for Eaton, some not until the following season.) The Wyoming case

serves to illustrate the great difficulties that athletes faced when attempting to engage

in civil rights activism. The black 14 were dismissed from the team for merely wishing

to discuss an act of protest against another school. Articulating the belief that sport

gave young black men opportunities they did not have in other areas of society, Eaton

argued that what we were trying to do for these fellows was to give them that chance

to really do something for their people by getting that education. [52] For Eaton,

playing the game and graduating university represented progress and advancement



17/22

for the black players above what could be expected in wider society. It was

unacceptable, however, to bring racial politics into the sporting arena.

With the passage of time the incident at Wyoming has gained something of an

iconic status and is the most consistently cited incident of civil rights struggle

through sports after the Smith and Carlos podium salute. A memorial to thestand made by the black players was later placed in the student union building at

the university. Nevertheless, the players involved at the time did not see events in

this wider context. Joe Williams recalled that at the time he and the other black

players did not draw any parallel between their actions and those of Smith and

Carlos at the Olympics the year before. Their principal concern was with the clear

racism of the BYU and the treatment they received when they played against

them. [53] The white players were shocked and hurt by the protest and the

destruction of a winning team; this was their main reaction at the time of the

events. Recalling events later, however, a broader context allows a more subtle

perspective. Ken Hustad argued that knowing what he did 30 or more years on he

would have supported their cause and wished he could have opened up

communications to discuss things at the time. Michael Newton recalled that

events moved very quickly with no time to talk through the issues with the black

players or coach Eaton. Newton argued that it would be impossible for him as a

white person to fully understand what the black players were facing. What is

striking, though, is that there is still a feeling that however justified the grievances

of these players may have been, the method of protest chosen was wrong. The

team and sporting ideal were sacrosanct and should not be compromised by the

intrusion of the civil rights struggle. [54]This prevailing belief provided a considerable frustration to those athletes who

wished to engage in that struggle. Black player Melvin Hamilton later articulated

his frustration by stating: So I can beat you physically but when it comes to my

civil rights I cant say anything. The fact that Hamilton participated in a violent

game provides an interesting dynamic. Harry Edwards noted the irony that black

men, engaged in violent, aggressive, competitive sports actually were regarded

as . . . non-violent. [55] The dichotomy is not so simple, though; playing the

game was not widely recognized as a form of protest. The dominant sporting

ideology regarded playing the game as compliance. Indeed Edwards argued that

black sportsmen needed to become more conscious of their place as passive

performers for sports crowds. Pamela Grundys study of sport and education in

North Carolina revealed that some black players did relish racially integrated

contests because of the opportunity to physically punish white opponents. [56]

The central ideology of the sporting world, however, was that integrated

competition represented racial progress and brought people together in a way

that provided an example to the rest of society. The frustration felt by Hamilton

and other athletes who wished to engage in civil rights activism was the

restrictions they faced. They were able to play the game but could not successfully

cross the line and protest against racial injustice.

116 S. Henderson


18/22

Athletes at Marquette, Kansas and Wyoming drew attention mainly to racial

inequality in wider society rather than inside the sporting arena itself. This charge

was, however, levelled by many student athletes. The accusations that sport

perpetuated racial prejudice were deeply troubling to the National Collegiate

Athletics Association (NCAA). Their response to the intrusion of racial politics in thesporting arena reveals the depth of the prevailing ideal that sport had delivered

positive racial change and the desire to keep racial politics outside of the sporting

arena. The attitude of the NCAA further exemplifies the difficulties faced by student

athletes who wished to engage in the civil rights movement.

As well as events at Marquette, Kansas, Wyoming and elsewhere, a series of articles

in Sports Illustrated by Jack Olsen entitled The Black Athlete A Shameful Story

highlighted race problems in college sports. [57] NCAA president Marcus Plant wrote

to public relations director Thomas Hansen in early August 1968 asking for a list of

inaccuracies that were alleged to be contained in the Olsen articles. Plant explained he

wanted to be armed with all the ammunition I can get. [58] Hansen replied a week

later with a number of rebuttals to the allegations made by Olsen in his article. While

he argued that it was unrealistic for the NCAA to refute outright allegations of racism

in college sports since the organization would be speaking for over 600 institutions,

he did seek to expose Olsen as someone who had used questionable evidence. It is

telling that the investigation he conducted was aimed at discrediting the claims made

in the Sports Illustrated articles rather than looking into what could be done to

improve the position of the black athlete.

The NCAA was obviously sensitive to the charges of racial discrimination in college

sports and was hurt by the allegation that sport was being exposed as a place with asmuch racism as wider society. Hansen corresponded with many of the institutions

mentioned in the Olsen series and sent further information to Plant later in August

1968. In a letter of thanks to University of Washington athletic director James Owens,

Hansen wrote: Its most helpful to have specific cases to show that many of the

printed complaints by Negroes are simply not factually true. He further mentioned

that the NCAA council had discussed the black athlete situation and would do so

again in the future. [59] The official minutes of the council meetings for 1968 reveal

nothing of these conversations and, as such, it is not clear exactly how lengthy or

serious they were. [60]

By highlighting the inaccuracies in Olsens evidence Hansen was attempting to

show that racism was limited to a small number of individuals and specific incidents.

Hartmann correctly judges that Olsen got the story of African-American discontent

in sport right. He is not, though, correct in asserting that Hansen came to a similar

conclusion. To support his view, Hartmann points to a comment by Hansen that SI

[Sports Illustrated] isnt totally wrong, just incredibly sloppy. He argues that this

comment supports the summary by Hansen that the NCAA could not be defended

against claims of racism. Firstly, however, the NCAA public relations director was

only conceding that all of society had racism in it and that his establishment could

not be held to account for all the people under its organization. He does not concede



19/22

institutional racism. Secondly, Hartmann takes the Hansen quote out of context. The

actual sentence in the letter read here SI isnt totally wrong, just incredibly sloppy.

The word here is important because it draws attention to the specific subject of the

previous paragraph which deals with a mix-up over a photograph and a by-line

concerning the record breaking UCLA relay team. [61] Hansen was commenting onthis mix-up, not making a general point about Olsens charges of racial prejudice.

The NCAA clearly resented Olsens assertions and president Plant wrote to Hansen

concerning his investigations: I am seeking a good opportunity to make a public

appearance and devote my remarks toward outlining the deficiencies in this article

and holding it up as a horrible example of irresponsible journalism. The incidences

of racial unrest at the campus level which continued into 1969 received attention

from the NCAA executive director Walter Byers. In a memorandum to Byers in

November 1969 a list of questions was proposed which would be used in an

investigation to ascertain the extent to which outside interests may have been

involved in the difficulties some universities had experienced with Negro student-

athletes. Interestingly the vast majority of the proposed questions were aimed at

discovering how students protested, what the impact was on other team members

and coaches and the level of disruption to the university as a whole. Only two of the

proposed 13 questions were actually interested in what the athletes were demanding

and whether or not the athletics department had met with the protesters. None of the

questions that were to be used in off the record discussions with coaches at

Wyoming, Washington, Colorado state, Oregon State and Iowa probed whether or

not black protesters grievances were in any way legitimate or if the universities had

attempted to meet these grievances with policy changes. [62]The attitudes of the NCAA are evidence of the determination to protect the

cherished ideal of sport as a racially neutral arena. It was this ideal that made it so

difficult for athletes to attempt to engage in civil rights activism. Sporting authorities

wanted to keep sport apolitical but by insisting that it was a positive force for racial

progress they were sending a message that invited an engagement with civil rights

issues especially when many athletes believed that sport was falling short of the ideal

or could be used to do more to further the civil rights movement.

The NCAAs principal concern, just like the IOC and USOC, was to stifle racial

protest in the sporting arena and continue to promote the idealized vision of sport as

a positive racial force. It is worth noting that with such a large and diverse

membership the NCAA had only limited ability to organize a more proactive

approach to the racial struggles at the campus level. Nevertheless, its primary concern

with neutralizing dissent is clear. The dominant ideology of the sporting

administration was that the civil rights struggle should remain outside the orbit of

sport, yet it was believed that integrated sport brought racial progress. This provides

the central paradox. An arena that was hailed as an example to the rest of society of

successful race relations provided unique difficulties for those who wished to engage

in civil rights activism. Athletes, both black and white, could not, without significant

difficulties, cross the line and use their position to further the racial struggle.

118 S. Henderson


20/22

Notes

[1] Pope, Patriotic Games, 3: Roberts and Olson, Winning is the Only Thing, 25.

[2] Hartmann, Rethinking the Relationships Between Sport and Race, 233.

[3] Telephone interview with Harry Edwards, 26 Jan. 2004.[4] Hoberman, Darwins Athletes, 8, 28, 30.

[5] Hartmann, Rethinking the Relationships Between Sport and Race, 230.

[6] Kellner, Sports, Media, Culture and Race, 4625.

[7] Hartmann, Race, Culture, and the Revolt of the Black Athlete.

[8] Bass, Not the Triumph But the Struggle.

[9] Telephone interview with Dick Fosbury, 5 Feb. 2004.

[10] Telephone interview with Cleve Livingston, 18 Aug. 2004.

[11] Hartmann, Race, Culture and the Revolt of the Black Athlete , 84.

[12] Spivey, Black Consciousness and Olympic Protest Movement, 23940.

[13] Handwritten Wilkins reply to letter of 15 April 1964, Group 3, Box A3, Sports, NAACP

collection, Library of Congress (hereafter NAACP Collection).

[14] NAACP telegram to Governor Wallace, December 1966, Group 4, Box A76, Sports, NAACP

Collection.

[15] Edwards, The Revolt of the Black Athlete, 53; The Angry Black Athlete, Newsweek, 15 July

1968.

[16] Telephone interview with Ralph Boston, 27 July 2004; New York NAACP branch to Wilkins,

12 June 1961, Group 3, Box A3, Sports, NAACP Collection.

[17] Telephone interview with Ralph Boston, 27 July 2004; telephone interview with Phil Shinnick,

23 July 2004.

[18] Guttmen, The Games Must Go On, 244.

[19] Telephone interview with Paul Hoffman, 4 Aug. 2004.

[20] Edwards, The Revolt of the Black Athlete, 95.

[21] Brewster and Brewster, Mexico 1968.[22] Vasquez letter to Lord Exeter, 3 April 1968, Brundage Collection Reel 103, Box 179, IOC

Archives, Lausanne.

[23] Statement dated 24 July 1968, Rowing File, 196872, USOC archives.

[24] Letters dated 5 Sept. 1968, Rowing File, 196872, USOC archives; telephone interview with

Paul Hoffman, 4 Aug. 2004.

[25] Carlin to Everett, 2 Sept. 1968, Rowing File, 196872, USOC archives.

[26] The Harvard Crimson, 6 Nov. 1968; telephone interview with Paul Hoffman, 4 Aug. 2004.

[27] Telephone interview with Hal Connolly, 13 Jan. 2004; telephone interview with Lee Evans, 20

April 2004.

[28] Paul, Setting the 1968 Record Straight, 15.

[29] Roby to Brundage, 8 Aug. 1968, Box 62, Roby, Douglas F. Folder, 1968 correspondence, AveryBrundage papers, University of Illinois Archives.

[30] Roby to Parker, 5 Nov. 1968, copy of letter in authors possession courtesy of Paul Hoffman

(Harvard crew coxswain, 1968).

[31] Zang, Sports Wars; Underwood, The Desperate Coach; Underwood, Shave off That Thing.

[32] Wiggins, The Future of College Athletics is at Stake, 330.

[33] Telephone interview with Bob Wolfe, 17 April 2006; telephone interview with Bob Abright, 13

April 2006.

[34] Students United for Racial Equality Correspondence, 196568, 8.3, series 10, box 17,

Marquette University Archives.

[35] An Open Letter to Marquette, 1 May 1968, 8.5, Series 3, Box 4, Student Power Respond

Movement, Marquette University Archives.



21/22

[36] The Marquette Tribune, 10 May 1968.

[37] Telephone interview with Joe Thomas, 24 Aug. 2004: Open letter from concerned students at

Marquette University, May 1968, 8.4, Series 6, Box 7, Marquette University Archives.

[38] Account by Basketball Coaching Staff and Statement of George Thompson, 17 May 1968,

8.5, Series 3, Box 1, Marquette University Archives.

[39] The Marquette Tribune, 22 May 1968; Letter to Alumni by President Raynor, June 1968,Series 3,Box 3, Marquette University Archives.

[40] Telephone interview with Mike Fons, 10 Sept. 2004.

[41] Telephone interview with Willie Amison, 4 Oct. 2004; interview with Bill Bell, 30 Aug. 2004.

[42] New York Times, 11 May 1968.

[43] The University Daily Kansan, 13 May 1968.

[44] Telephone interview with Willie Amison, 4 Oct. 2004; telephone interview with Bill Bell, 30

Aug. 2004.

[45] Telephone interview with T.J. Gaughan, 27 Oct. 2004.

[46] Michener, Sports in America, 1579; Barrett, Black 14 Williams v. Eaton: A Personal

Recollection.

[47] Athletes proposed statement of facts, Irene Kettunen Schubert papers, Box 1, Folder 7,American Heritage Centre, University of Wyoming.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Putnam, No Defeats, Loads of Trouble, 27.

[50] K-2 T.V. Editorial, Irene Kettunen Schubert papers, Box 1, Folder 14, American Heritage

Centre, University of Wyoming.

[51] Black student Alliance Statement, Irene Kettunen Schubert papers, Box 1, Folder 8, American

Heritage Centre, University of Wyoming.

[52] New York Times, 8 Nov. 1969.

[53] Telephone interview with Joe Williams, 11 July 2004.

[54] Telephone interview with Dr Michael Newton, 16 Aug. 2004; telephone interview with Ken

Hustad, 21 March 2004.[55] Telephone interview with Melvin Hamilton, 19 April 2004; Edwards, The Revolt of the Black

Athlete, 26.

[56] Grundy, Learning to Win, 26670.

[57] Olsen, The Black Athlete.

[58] Plant to Hansen, 2 Aug. 1968, Walter Byers Papers, Racial Matters file, NCAA Archives.

[59] Hansen to Owens, 21 Aug. 1968, Walter Byers Papers, Racial Matters file, NCAA Archives.

[60] NCAA Executive Council Minutes, 1968, Walter Byers Papers, Council, NCAA file, NCAA

Archives.

[61] Hartmann, Race, Culture and the Revolt of the Black Athlete , 222; Hansen to Plant, 13 Aug.

1968, Walter Byers Papers, Racial Matters file, NCAA Archives.

[62] Investigation of Black Athlete Problem, 10 Nov. 1969, Walter Byers Papers, Racial Matters

file, NCAA Archives.

References

Barrett, J.E. Black 14 Williams v. Eaton: A Personal Recollection. Wyoming History Journal 68

(1996).

Bass, A. Not the Triumph But the Struggle: The 1968 Olympics and the Making of the Black Athlete .

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Brewster, C. and K. Brewster. Mexico 1968 Sombreros and Skyscrapers. In National Identity and

Global Events: Culture, Politics and Spectacle in the Olympics and Football World Cup , edited

by A. Tomlinson and C. Young. New York: State University of New York Press, 2005: 99

116.

120 S. Henderson


22/22

Edwards, E. The Revolt of the Black Athlete. New York: Free Press, 1969.

Grundy, P. Learning to Win Sports, Education, and Social Change in Twentieth Century North-

Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Guttmen, A. The Games Must Go On: Avery Brundage and the Olympic Movement. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1984.

Hartmann, D. Rethinking the Relationships Between Sport and Race in American Culture: GoldenGhettos and Contested Terrain. Journal of Sociology of Sport 17 (2000).

Hartmann, D. Race, Culture, and the Revolt of the Black Athlete. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2003.

Hoberman, J. Darwins Athletes: How Sport has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of

Race. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

Kellner, D. Sports, Media, Culture and Race: Some Reflections on Michael Jordan. Sociology of

Sport Journal 13 (1996).

Michener, J.A. Sports in America. New York: Random House, 1976.

Olsen, J. The Black Athlete A Shameful Story; The Myth of Integrated Sport. New York: Time-Life,

1968.

Paul, C. Robert. Setting the 1968 Record Straight. Journal of Olympic History 5 (1997).Pope, S. Patriotic Games: Sporting Traditions in the American Tradition 18761926. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1997.

Putnam, P. No Defeats, Loads of Trouble. Sports Illustrated, 3 Nov. 1969.

Roberts, R. and J. Olson. Winning is the Only Thing: Sports in America since 1945. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

Spivey, D. Black Consciousness and Olympic Protest Movement, 19641980. In Sport in America;

New Historical Perspectives, edited by D. Spivey. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Underwood, J. The Desperate Coach. Sports Illustrated, 25 Aug. 1969.

Underwood, J. Shave off That Thing. Sports Illustrated, 1 Sept. 1969.

Wiggins, D.K. The Future of College Athletics is at Stake: Black Athletes and the Racial Turmoil on

Three Predominantly White University Campuses, 19691972. Journal of Sport History 15(1988).

Zang, D.W. Sports Wars: Athletes in the Age of Aquarius. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas

Press, 2001.


international journal of the history of sports. henderson. 'crossing the line: sport and the limits...

Documents