Why sports teams and players shouldn't be obligated to meet the president.

Golden State Warrior Kevin Durant. Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images.

The Golden State Warriors went through all of the celebratory traditions after beating the Cleveland Cavaliers in Game 5 of the NBA Finals to become this year's league champions: They relished in falling confetti, took photos with their beaming families, promptly donned their new "NBA champions" hats, and raised their shiny new trophy into the air as one.

But there's a very big tradition the Warriors may not be partaking in this year: meeting the president.

According to some unconfirmed reports that surfaced in the hours after the game, the Golden State Warriors may not be visiting the White House to meet President Donald Trump.


Pro teams often get White House invites after bringing home the gold in their sport. But, according to an unsubstantiated tweet from CNBC analyst Josh Brown, the Golden State Warriors voted to opt out of the event just hours after beating the Cavaliers.

Brown's tweet quickly took off, with people both praising and critiquing the team's "unanimous" decision.

In response, the team released a statement on the matter, contradicting Brown's Tweet.

"Today is all about celebrating our championship," the statement read. "We have not received an invitation to the White House, but will make those decisions when and if necessary."

If the Warriors do end up deciding against a trip to D.C., though, it won't be all that surprising to many Golden State fans.

Many Warriors players have been critical of Trump over the past several months.

In February, star player Steph Curry was asked if he agreed with Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank's comments referring to Trump as a "real asset."

"I agree with that description — if you remove the 'et' [from 'asset']," Curry shot back.

Steph Curry. Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images.

Warriors Coach Steve Kerr — whose father was killed by terrorism in Lebanon in 1984 — also slammed Trump's proposed travel ban targeting Muslims in January:

"As someone whose family member was a victim of terrorism, and having lost my father: If we’re trying to combat terrorism by banishing people from coming to this country, [we’re] really going against the principles of what our country is about, and creating fear. It’s the wrong way to go about it. If anything, we could be breeding anger and terror."

Coach Steve Kerr. Photo by Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images.

Golden State guard Shaun Livingston said months ago that, should his team win the championship, he "definitely wouldn't go" to the White House. After Trump's inauguration, player David West claimed Trump voters "responded to some of the most infantile, non-decent language that you could expect coming from a [presidential] candidate."

The Warriors' big NBA win comes after many New England Patriots skipped out on their White House visit following their Super Bowl victory. Defensive tackle Alan Branch was one of the players who sat on the sidelines for the event, citing the "disgusting" way Trump talks about women as the main reason he couldn't follow through.

The attitudes of many Warriors and Patriots illustrate why each team and every player should make their own decisions when it comes to a White House visit.

After all, very little about this presidency is normal.

In years past, pro sports teams and their players have put politics aside — regardless of who's in office — and accepted the honor. But an abnormal president calls for bucking normal traditions.

Most Shared

Comedy legend Carol Burnett once said, "Giving birth is like taking your lower lip and forcing it over your head." She wasn't joking.

Going through childbirth is widely acknowledged as one of the most grueling things a human can endure. Having birthed three babies myself, I can attest that Burnett's description is fairly accurate—if that seemingly impossible lip-stretching feat lasted for hours and involved a much more sensitive part of your body.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
via SNL / YouTube

Christopher Walken is one of the greatest actors of his generation. He's been nominated for an Academy Award twice for best supporting actor, winning once for 1978's "The Deer Hunter" and receiving a nomination for 2002's "Catch Me if You Can."

He's played memorable roles in "Annie Hall," "Pulp Fiction," "Wedding Crashers," "Batman Returns," and countless other films. He's also starred in Shakespeare on the stage and began his career as a dancer.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

Disney has come under fire for problematic portrayals of non-white and non-western cultures in many of its older movies. They aren't the only one, of course, but since their movies are an iconic part of most American kids' childhoods, Disney's messaging holds a lot of power.

Fortunately, that power can be used for good, and Disney can serve as an example to other companies if they learn from their mistakes, account for their misdeeds, and do the right thing going forward. Without getting too many hopes up, it appears that the entertainment giant may have actually done just that with the new Frozen II film.

According to NOW Toronto, the producers of Frozen II have entered into a contract with the Sámi people—the Indigenous people of the Scandinavian regions—to ensure that they portray the culture with respect.

RELATED: This fascinating comic explains why we shouldn't use some Native American designs.

Though there was not a direct portrayal of the Sámi in the first Frozen movie, the choral chant that opens the film was inspired by an ancient Sámi vocal tradition. In addition, the clothing worn by Kristoff closely resembled what a Sámi reindeer herder would wear. The inclusion of these elements of Sámi culture with no context or acknowledgement sparked conversations about cultural appropriation and erasure on social media.

Frozen II features Indigenous culture much more directly, and even addressed the issue of Indigenous erasure. Filmmakers Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, along with producer Peter Del Vecho, consulted with experts on how to do that respectfully—the experts, of course, being the Sámi people themselves.

Sámi leaders met with Disney producer Peter Del Vecho in September 2019.Sámediggi Sametinget/Flickr

The Sámi parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and the non-governmental Saami Council reached out to the filmmakers when they found out their culture would be highlighted in the film. They formed a Sámi expert advisory group, called Verddet, to assist filmmakers in with how to accurately and respectfully portray Sámi culture, history, and society.

In a contract signed by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Sámi leaders, the Sámi stated their position that "their collective and individual culture, including aesthetic elements, music, language, stories, histories, and other traditional cultural expressions are property that belong to the Sámi," and "that to adequately respect the rights that the Sámi have to and in their culture, it is necessary to ensure sensitivity, allow for free, prior, and informed consent, and ensure that adequate benefit sharing is employed."

RELATED: This aboriginal Australian used kindness and tea to trump the racism he overheard.

Disney agreed to work with the advisory group, to produce a version of Frozen II in one Sámi language, as well as to "pursue cross-learning opportunities" and "arrange for contributions back to the Sámi society."

Anne Lájla Utsi, managing director at the International Sámi Film Institute, was part of the Verddet advisory group. She told NOW, "This is a good example of how a big, international company like Disney acknowledges the fact that we own our own culture and stories. It hasn't happened before."

"Disney's team really wanted to make it right," said Utsi. "They didn't want to make any mistakes or hurt anybody. We felt that they took it seriously. And the film shows that. We in Verddet are truly proud of this collaboration."

Sounds like you've done well this time, Disney. Let's hope such cultural sensitivity and collaboration continues, and that other filmmakers and production companies will follow suit.

popular

Gerrymandering is a funny word, isn't it? Did you know that it's actually a mashup of the name "Gerry" and the word "salamander"? Apparently, in 1812, Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry had a new voting district drawn that seemed to favor his party. On a map, the district looked like a salamander, and a Boston paper published it with the title The GerryMander.

That tidbit of absurdity seems rather tame compared to an entire alphabet made from redrawn voting districts a century later, and yet here we are. God bless America.

Keep Reading Show less
popular