This article was downloaded by: [Liverpool John Moores University]

On: 22 February 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773557660]
Publisher Routledge
Informa 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 Sport

Publication 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 Protest
Simon Henderson a
a
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 the
History of Sport,26:1,101 — 121
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09523360802500576
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360802500576

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should 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 directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The International Journal of the History of Sport
Vol. 26, No. 1, January 2009, 101–121

Crossing the Line: Sport and the Limits

of Civil Rights Protest
Simon Henderson
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 to
provide – 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: sihen79@hotmail.com

ISSN 0952-3367 (print)/ISSN 1743-9035 (online) Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09523360802500576
 102 S. Henderson
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 their
destiny 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]
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 in
society, 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
work Darwin’s 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]
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 103

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 but
simultaneously 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 to
dramatize 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.
 104 S. Henderson
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 role
and 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 perception
was 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 sport’s 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]
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 105

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.
Wilkins’s 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 much
to be said for this’. [13] Four years after Wilkins’s 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

athletes to engage in political action. The association’s 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 America’s racial problems; speaking out against the
war 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 one’s 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 Boston’s stance, and his decision not to
support the OPHR boycott of 1968, is the contrast with his earlier activism. Boston
 106 S. Henderson
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 York
Athletic 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 Africa’s invitation
to 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 Africa’s participation in the games. He endorsed
sport’s 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 Africa’s 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]
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 107

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 sporting
arena 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 Dı́az 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 Vázquez, chairman
of the Mexican organizing committee spelled out Mexico’s stance. Vazquez argued
that the Olympics were ‘an extraordinary opportunity presented to the Mexican
people 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 Africa’s 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
 108 S. Henderson
radical political agenda, but quite another to deal with middle-class white athletes
from a leading academic institution.
The crew’s 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 no
attempt 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 orientated
demonstrations’. 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 Smith’s and Carlos’s 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
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 109

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 sustained
involvement 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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] Brundage’s 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 written
to 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 various
facets of society, but certainly this sort of promotion has no place in the Olympic
Games, and particularly when they are held in a foreign country, which is not
particularly involved in these internal problems of ours. [30]
 110 S. Henderson
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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

in racial politics have been explored by David Zang and David Wiggins. Zang’s 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 and
convince 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
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 111

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 basketball
team. [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.
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 athlete’s 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 the
great 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 board’s 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
 112 S. Henderson
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 use
their 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 to
encourage 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
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 113

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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 believed
in . . . 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]
 114 S. Henderson
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 white
players 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 coach’s 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
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 115

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 Joe
Williams 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 Eaton’s 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 institution’s 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 on
their 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
 116 S. Henderson
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 the
stand 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 can’t 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 Grundy’s 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.
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 117

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 the
sporting 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 as
much 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: ‘It’s 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 Olsen’s 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] isn’t 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
 118 S. Henderson
institutional racism. Secondly, Hartmann takes the Hansen quote out of context. The
actual sentence in the letter read ‘here SI isn’t 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 on
this mix-up, not making a general point about Olsen’s charges of racial prejudice.
The NCAA clearly resented Olsen’s 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
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 NCAA’s 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.
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 119

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, Darwin’s Athletes, 8, 28, 30.
[5] Hartmann, ‘Rethinking the Relationships Between Sport and Race’, 230.
[6] Kellner, ‘Sports, Media, Culture and Race’, 462–5.
[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’, 239–40.
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

[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, 1968–72, USOC archives.
[24] Letters dated 5 Sept. 1968, Rowing File, 1968–72, USOC archives; telephone interview with
Paul Hoffman, 4 Aug. 2004.
[25] Carlin to Everett, 2 Sept. 1968, Rowing File, 1968–72, 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, Avery
Brundage papers, University of Illinois Archives.
[30] Roby to Parker, 5 Nov. 1968, copy of letter in author’s 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, 1965–68, 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.
 120 S. Henderson
[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.
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

[46] Michener, Sports in America, 157–9; 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, 266–70.
[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.
 Limits of Civil Rights Protest Through Sport 121

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: Golden
Ghettos 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. Darwin’s 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.
Downloaded By: [Liverpool John Moores University] At: 14:41 22 February 2009

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 1876–1926. 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, 1964–1980’. 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, 1969–1972’. Journal of Sport History 15
(1988).
Zang, D.W. Sports Wars: Athletes in the Age of Aquarius. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas
Press, 2001.