Content warning: This story addresses the killing of Alex Pretti.

“The party told you,” wrote George Orwell at the end of 1984, “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I write this piece after federal agents executed Minnesota native Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who worked as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care system. Pretti was shot at least ten times in the span of five seconds. This is the second killing by federal agents in three weeks, after Renée Nicole Good was killed by I.C.E. agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7.

Video footage taken by eyewitnesses and obtained by a variety of news organizations suggests that Pretti was not violently resisting federal agents; instead, Pretti was assisting a woman that had been pepper-sprayed by agents. He did not threaten agents with the firearm he was legally carrying. In fact, federal agents disarmed him as they were holding him. 

Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately sought to frame Pretti as a domestic terrorist. Less than two hours after Pretti’s death, official DHS social media accounts claimed, without evidence, that “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” 

In a press conference, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questioned why a law-abiding citizen would be carrying a gun: “I don’t know of any peaceful protestor that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Yet Pretti was legally armed: he had a legal conceal-and-carry permit, which satisfies Minnesota state law requiring a permit to carry. Minnesota law notwithstanding, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to broadly protect citizens’ rights to carry firearms.

The federal response to Pretti’s death suggests that the evidence of our eyes and ears—especially those of the eyes and ears on the ground—ought to be rejected. DHS officials understand that the Department is gaslighting the public, as one anonymous officer told CBS:

“It’s unclear who at DHS thought it would be a good idea to make such claims before any facts were established, but it was a terrible miscalculation… When we gaslight and contradict what the public can plainly see with their own eyes, we lose all credibility and it’s going to damage our reputation for generations.”

Indeed, critical analysis of this case suggests that the government’s narrative has fabricated key aspects of the story and lied about Pretti’s motivations, with no attempts made to rectify this.

How Not to Find Truth

There are two tempting yet improper approaches when following a story.

The first is to follow a narrative without considering other perspectives. If you let one source define your understanding of the scenario, you will go eighty miles towards their preferred conclusions before you even consider other facts. That applies to all sources, as one source never has sufficient evidence on its own. Finding reliable sources of information, especially on-the-ground or local sources, is crucial. Eyewitnesses,, are often more reliable than secondary reporting; video is even more reliable.

The second erroneous path is to conclude that the problem is too complex to untie, and that staying out is the best and/or safest option. This is sometimes necessary in academic or professional settings, but is unhelpful for navigating daily life. Thinking, processing and responding to tragedies is part of the logical and emotional loops that make us human. (In this particular case, not caring about the result— a man being shot by federal agents—might suggest a different, more sinister, kind of emotional response.)

The Steps of the Coverup

When critically evaluating conflicting narratives, it’s important to look for evidence of a coverup: places where the government, media outlets, or other sources of information seek to omit or misrepresent critical evidence.

The government’s official telling of events (off the record, DHS officials are confident the public-facing story is wrong) omits evidence for a key aspect of its case. It claims, without presenting evidence, that Pretti “brandish[ed]” a gun at federal agents. At the time of writing, existing video analysis suggests that Pretti did not “brandish” a firearm, at least not in the threatening sense of that term. Indeed, by the time of the shooting Pretti had already been disarmed. Moreover, Secretary Noem declined to answer direct questions about the timeline of the alleged “brandishing.” This is atypical behavior given the circumstances on the ground, and Noem’s avoidance suggests there is more to be discovered here.

In addition, the absence of body-worn or other cameras from I.C.E. agents is telling. I.C.E. agents are required by DHS policy, updated under the Trump administration, to “capture footage of Enforcement Activities… as soon as safely possible.” At time of publication, the White House confirmed the existence of body cam footage but has declined to release it. If the government wishes to substantiate its claim that Pretti is a “domestic terrorist,” it should provide evidence that the agent was indeed threatened or had a reasonable fear for his life, which would justify claims of self-defense. The release of such footage would complement rather than hinder existing video analysis, as current accounts do not show significant portions of the lead-up. 

A third item suggesting a potential coverup: federal investigators, in an uncommon move, have blocked state and local authorities from accessing the crime scene or conducting their own investigations. This occurred both in the killing of Pretti and the killing of Renée Good. In Pretti’s case, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been denied access to the scene even though they have a signed judicial warrant granting them access. If indeed the officers in these cases acted correctly, state investigators’ access to the scene would have led them to the same conclusion. The DHS intends to investigate itself and find itself free from wrongdoing.

When The Party Lies

Like Big Brother, Homeland Security has attempted a brazen retelling of the narrative. Orwell’s quotation about the “final, most essential command” does not end there. It goes on to say that the protagonist’s heart “sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate…” While “Party intellectual” might be a touch oxymoronic in this context, Orwell’s emphasis on trusting our eyes remains. In the face of a powerful state actively attempting to sanctify its assassins and change how its own history is understood, truth remains a powerful defense—as long as we let it. Instead of addressing the killing of Alex Pretti as a tragedy that must be investigated, the administration’s response seeks to vilify the dead without providing a shred of evidence. Americans must not fall for such an easy excuse. We must demand accountability from those in power. 
As with Ms. Good, the blood of the innocent is in the air. Last week, Americans celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., whose famous speech claimed that “[s]omehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.’” This demand for justice, and for truth, must never go unanswered. Minneapolis faith leaders are already heeding the call. So should we.

Following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, several members of the Jewell community have been involved in Black Lives Matter activism, as well as standing against racism and police brutality. The following article features multimedia content and interviews with a few Jewell alumni and students who have attended recent protests against police brutality in the Kansas City area.

Elise Villarreal, senior English and theater major, attended Kansas City protests at the Country Club Plaza the weekend of May 30. She filmed a video depicting police arresting an unarmed protester and pepper-spraying members of the protest around the arrested man. This video has since gone viral and gotten over 8.4 million views. Villarreal posted other videos of the protest in the same Twitter thread that also depicted police aggression. 

These videos can be viewed below.

CONTENT WARNING: physical assault, strong language

Villarreal was also injured in the protest. After being hit by a police baton from an officer arresting another protester, Villareal’s hand was broken in two places. In an interview with KSHB, she remarked that while she might want an apology from the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD), she ultimately just wants to see an end to police brutality. 

Villarreal’s videos from the Plaza protest have been shared by multiple major news media organizations – including local media, like The Kansas City Star and KSHB, national media, like BuzzFeed News and Last Week Tonight, and international media, like the Daily Mail.

Talia Zook, ‘19, went to the protest in the afternoon of Sunday, May 31 with friends she had met through her job at City Year. Zook estimated that hundreds of protesters were in attendance. Several brought first aid supplies, water, snacks and poster board for others at the protest.

Though Zook was present at the protest well before curfew, she noted that the KCPD were already brandishing weapons, holding tear gas in hand, stockpiling zip-tie handcuffs and stationing snipers in towers around the Plaza. 

Furthermore, she recounted the officers’ stoic presence as protesters implored them to demonstrate that their messages were being heard. 

“The police presence was emotionless, and therefore cold. We threw out multiple opportunities for them to show they were there to acknowledge us, not to just enforce rules for us. ‘Nod your head in solidarity if black lives matter!’ ‘Take a knee with us!’ ‘At least acknowledge us!’ The cops were looking through everyone, aside from the handful of protestors who were either walking up and down the line leading chants, or engaging in 1:1 conversations with them. It seemed as though they would only listen to what you had to say if you walked up and stood in front of their face. Something a lot of us were not willing to risk, but we fortunately were among people who were,” Zook said.

Zook also attended the counter-protest to the KCPD’s unity march, which occurred Wednesday, June 3 at the Plaza. 

This time, because curfew had been lifted, Zook arrived in the evening, at about 7:30 p.m. As midnight approached, two distinct, sizable groups of protesters either marched or protested in front of the cop line.  

“Police presence was much more threatening this time, and I think it was just because we were there at night,” Zook said. “They were everywhere. Stacked, armed and poised for violence. Having been on the line that was in front of cops for some time before we left, all I saw was intimidation.”

Zook described what was effectively a standoff between police and protesters, with police demanding that protesters stay out of the street and away from the cop line. Police placed caution tape across the whole intersection and blocked off surrounding streets with their cars. Though protesters asked for the police to explain why they could not enter the streets, police did not respond.

“They also repeatedly asked protestors to keep their distance from the cops and back up. Mind you, there was a solid five feet between our line and theirs, with the exception of chant-leaders and individuals who wanted to share their stories with the officers who would listen. I heard the story of a man who’s best friend was sentenced to 12 years in prison for raping a white girl, even though there was no evidence of assault. She had one bruise on her leg, and that’s all they needed to convict his best friend to 12 years. It was really sad to hear, but it was also intriguing to see the way the cops reacted to his story because I felt it was very telling. There was sympathy in their response, but it almost seemed forced. It was like they recognized the tragedy, but still couldn’t believe any of their coworkers would have done that,” Zook said.

Zook’s last interaction on this night was with a police officer who was stationed with a colleague outside of a Main Street QuikTrip. As Zook’s friend walked inside to get a drink, she repeatedly said to them, “silence is consent to murder.” After she went inside, the officer said, “Yeah, we’re not doing that here.” 

Zook, who was sitting in her car with the windows down observing this, recounted the conversation she had with the officer after her friend walked inside:

Zook: “We aren’t doing what here, sir?”

Cop: “Protesting. This is private property.”

Zook: “Who is protesting?”

Cop: silent

Zook: “Who is protesting?”

Cop: silent

Zook: “Who, is, protesting?”

Cop: “You heard me.”

Zook: “Alright, well I’m gonna go ahead and say whatever the f*ck I want to on this private property then. Get your public job off of this property since it’s so private.”

Cop: “Alright, well I have spray.”

Zook: “Ohhhhhhh, you’re mad huh? I just made you mad, didn’t I?”

Zook began joking with nearby protesters who had been observing about how quickly the officer became upset.

“[I]t was honestly very comical to me how he was upset enough by my words to threaten me. He was completely proving the point of the whole movement,” Zook said. “I continued to laugh and joke with the people in the car next to me as my friend came back outside, and then we saw the cop go inside and grab his pepper spray can from behind the counter. He was no longer able to look at us, but he came back outside with it in hand, shaking it as if he was preparing to use it. I decided to leave since we had everything we needed from the store, to which we received a very sarcastic, high school-like ‘GOODBYYYEEEEE!’ from the cops. I made sure to let cops know up the road that their coworker was at the QT intimidating protestors with spray. I don’t believe it was received, but I do know they heard me.” 

Brendan Davison, ‘20, attended both the Saturday, May 30 protest at the Plaza and the Sunday, May 31 protest at the Kansas City, Kan., Municipal Court House.

Davison described the varying forms of support shown by protesters at the Plaza. Posters said anything from “Black Lives Matter” and “Justice for George Floyd” to listing the names of various black victims of police violence – even on a local level. Protesters chanted mantras with similar themes, including “Black lives matter,” “No justice, no peace” and “Say his name.”

Davison noted that, in addition to being much more well-attended and having a larger police presence, the protest at the Plaza was characterized by more tension and confrontation than the protest he attended at the Municipal Court House in Kansas. The latter protest focused on more local issues of injustice and brought in community leaders from political, activist and religious circles to make public addresses to attendees.

Discussing the police presence at the Plaza protest, Davison said that police often resorted to aggressive measures when protesters stepped off the west-facing curb by the JC Nichols Memorial Fountain into the closed-off JC Nichols Parkway. Officers often used pepper spray to stun those who did so before making arrests. Davison recalled witnessing one of the individuals who had stepped off the curb backed into a car, thrown on the ground and arrested by advancing police officers who were attempting to push protesters back out of the street. 

“Because of their aggressive attitude towards the protests, I lay the blame for the violence, property destruction and general chaos that occurred on Saturday evening, after I left, on the KCPD, as the violence committed by some protesters was an escalating response to the aggression by the police. The police made no attempts at de-escalation, and instead resorted to physical force and intimidation from the outset. It also comes as no surprise that the ‘riots’ only began after the police deployed tear gas at 8 p.m., given the use of tear gas is often associated with not suppressing riots, but making riots more violent. For these reasons, I would classify this weekend’s events not as a violent protest, but as a police riot,” Davison said. 

As a long-time member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Davison has opposed racism, police brutality and white supremacy and supported movements like Black Lives Matter for years. His local chapter of DSA has a prison abolition working group that has enabled Davison to be engaged in matters promoting racial equality and criminal justice reform. Some of their initiatives include compiling reports on the conditions of the Jackson County jail and advocating the abolition of cash bail in Kansas City. One of their partners is Reale Justice Network, which has set up a cash bail fund for local protesters who were arrested by police.

“One thing I did seek to draw attention to this weekend is promoting Irish American solidarity with the black community. As an Irish-American myself, I am gravely disappointed with many in the Irish-American community, who uphold and defend the system of white supremacy. As someone who identifies heavily with the Irish Republican tradition, I struggle to see how people so proud of their Irish heritage and Irish resistance to English imperialism and rule, cannot see the parallels between the treatment of the Irish by the English and the treatment of Black Americans by the police,” Davison said.

Shae Crane, senior elementary education major, attended the June 5 protest at Kansas City’s City Hall. Crane remarked that this protest was quite peaceful and that she did not witness any instances of police aggression.

“This protest was very peaceful compared to the protest[s] I have seen on the news,” Crane said. “We [stood] in front of City Hall and listened to various speakers then once the speakers were over we moved in front of the police headquarters. That’s when police in riot gear and military officers started to funnel out of the police headquarters building and form a wall between the protestors and the building. A few chants I remember were ‘Why are you in riot gear? I don’t see a riot here.’ ‘Hands up, Don’t shoot.’ ‘Say their names, ‘Breonna Taylor’ ‘George Floyd.’”

To Crane’s estimation, this protest was well-attended, with the City Hall courtyard effectively filled with protesters. Once the march began, passersby contributed by honking, if in cars, or stopping to join in chants.

In addition to attending this protest, Crane has shown her support for the cause in several other ways.

“I have been signing various petitions, sharing informational articles and attending protests. I also posted my story as a biracial woman in America and some of the situations and experiences I have been through,” Crane said.

Jamie Briscoe, senior chemistry major, attended the Saturday, May 30 Kansas City Plaza protest. Describing the tone of the protest, he shared that an overarching ambivalence of emotions – namely, unease, fear and courage – filled the atmosphere.

“You get to see all sides of humanity during something like this; you have people standing in front of the protest who are face to face with police in all their riot gear, something that took more courage than I have ever needed. Everyone is in an extremely emotionally raw state due to the extreme adrenaline there. There are also people who are responsible for seeking out those who’ve been injured and helping them get proper medical care, be it from tear gas, rubber bullets, or the crowd trampling them as they retreat from the police. There are also less positive things you will see. I watched cowards stand 50 feet away, hiding behind other people as they threw rocks or water bottles in an attempt to incite a police response. This was almost always met with rounds of protesters trying desperately to stop them, and keep the police from unleashing even more tear gas,” Briscoe said.

In terms of the police presence at the Saturday protest, Briscoe noted that protesters far outnumbered police officers, but each officer was fully equipped with riot gear, including mace, sandbag bullets, shields, tear gas and flashbangs. 

Briscoe was tear-gassed by police twice during the protest. The first time, police deployed tear gas in response to a car that had been set on fire – which Briscoe had not been a part of – in an effort to prevent rioters from causing more damage. 

“The second time I was gassed, however, was a result of what I think was police handling the situation poorly. Me and a group of several people had kneeled to chant about 10 feet from one line of cops in gear, when cops behind us shot tear gas. This was especially painful because it meant we could not get rid of the canister before it had released all of its harmful chemicals, and so all of us kneeling had to run blindly to safety,” Briscoe said. “My friend who I had gone with was so disoriented by the pain and blindness that he accidentally ran towards the cops in fear; they responded by shoving him to the ground and yelling for him to get back while he yelled and wretched.”

This was Briscoe’s first time attending a protest, though he has shown support in other forms to related causes in the past. In a final statement, he emphasized the importance of actively engaging in efforts to resist injustice and oppression.

“My final point is only to say this: White silence is violence. If you are disinterested in supporting minority groups, you are allowing oppression to continue and benefit you. Everybody go protest and be a part of the positive change, the experience is not only vital to help these movements succeed, the personal growth you can feel is immense,” Briscoe said.

*Quotes have been reformatted to follow Monitor style guidelines.

American Public Square at Jewell offers some unique opportunities for the William Jewell College community, but its goal of restoring civility to politics is deeply flawed. This is not to say that we need to make vulgarity the norm, nor am I saying that American Public Square isn’t doing good work. There is certainly value to providing forums where issues can be discussed rationally and where, to quote Dr. Alan Holiman, “we can talk about this, and not about you.” These sorts of forums can be very useful for education on pertinent issues and help people gain a better understanding of politics. 

The problem is that the goal of promoting civility in relation to politics is in and of itself woefully misguided. Civility politics fundamentally benefit the powerful, at the expense of the powerless, it emphasizes style and tone, over content and actions, and it overlooks the conflictual nature of politics.

Civility politics assumes that through respectful and rational dialogue we can establish consensus and negotiate a compromise. Agreeing to disagree is the highest form of politics. It is no surprise that support for civility politics is so profound in academia and the media. But politics is not simply discourse where we can agree to disagree. Politics is about power, and it is about people’s lives. Fundamentally a struggle between irreconcilable forces. Hostility is as much a feature of politics as stress is a feature of college. 

Ambassador Allan Katz, founder of American Public Square and a distinguished professor at Jewell, has said that “politics doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game,” but two contradictory groups cannot both win, and for the people impacted by political decisions, especially those without power, politics is, more often than not, a zero-sum game. Political decisions have very real, material impacts and often can mean life or death. Cuts to Medicaid will lead to preventable deaths. Gentrification will force poor people out of their homes. 

There is inherent violence to politics that civility politics chooses to ignore because civility is rooted in norms that reflect the existing order and ideological hegemony. Police violence, systemic poverty, wars for hegemony, union-busting and gentrification are normalized because they are done by or for the benefit of the existing order and the ruling class. 

Resisting injustice and challenging the existing order requires norms to be violated, and thus the ruling class has always used civility to delegitimize and marginalize social justice movements. Protests, strikes, direct action, civil disobedience and other confrontational methods of extra-parliamentary politics are chastised by pundits and politicians for being uncivil, however, they are often the only effective means of combating systemic violence. 

The terms of civility would have people who are marginalized, disadvantaged and oppressed accept the conditions imposed on them by the ruling class. A call for civility is, in effect, a call for the status quo. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was criticized in his time for being uncivil, famously said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” This will often require people to be disruptive, confrontation, and even disrespectful.

Civility is also used to mask the ruthlessness of policies enacted by the powerful. A key element of civility is a presumption of good faith, people are entitled to the assumption that they are acting sincerely and with the purest intentions. Racist policies from the war on drugs, to gentrification, to voter suppression, are often justified in a way that is seen as more “civil”, emphasizing ideas like law and order or economic development, and does not appeal to overt racism. Perhaps this was most poignantly illustrated by Republican strategist Lee Atwater in 1981, who stated: 

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N*****, n*****, n*****.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n*****’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… ‘We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N*****, n*****.’”

This emphasis on style and tone over content and action allows the powerful to escape scrutiny and for harmful policies, rooted in bad faith, to be enacted. Those who challenge such policies on the grounds that they are racist are stifled and countered by denials which appeal to the assumption of good faith.

This is not to say the answer is vulgarity, as previously stated it is often useful to engage in civil dialogue with people we disagree with and this can even be necessary. But civility politics is deeply problematic. 

Civility for its own sake is fundamentally at odds with the inherently hostile nature of politics, benefits the powerful at the expense of the powerless and values style over substance, allowing ruthlessness to escape scrutiny.

NFL players protesting during the anthem is not a new topic. The story began last year with former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick choosing to kneel to protest police violence and racial injustices. Since then handfuls of players across the league have joined, with their protests sometimes being tweaked, like Seattle Seahawks’ Michael Bennett and Oakland Raiders’ Marshawn Lynch choosing to sit during the anthem. All protests have been peaceful, including the mass protest last week. Reactions were mixed, and the subject throughout the weekend turned into a bloated mess with many complicated layers to cover. To help me wade through these layers, I, as Sports Editor, was privileged enough to sit down with our Perspectives Editor and Student Senate President Drew Novak to discuss the wild weekend.

The most significant difference between the previous protests and the mass protest in week three was the involvement of President Trump. Trump’s comments at an Alabama rally wishing that owners would fire these “son of a bitch” players, incited a massive reaction by players, coaches and owners of every team in the NFL.

Novak: “[Trump] has no right to tell Americans which liberties they should and should not follow. He has more important things to worry about like his tweet setting off a major war with North Korea, it never ceases to amaze me the things he says and does.”

Marlay: “[Trump] clearly just throws constitutional rights out the window to rile up a crowd.” I questioned why such an importantly objective political leader in the world would make such a stance on this issue. “It’s such a sensitive topic, it kind of always has been since it started with Colin Kaepernick. You have major themes of race, constitutional rights, the NFL’s image problems.”

Novak: “Trump obviously felt as though his poll numbers were slipping… but that should in no way justify anything he said in no way, shape or form. I think there’s no justification for the comments he made.”

It’s not anything new that players and coaches speak about political issues. What was relatively new about this event was the response of NFL teams’ owners. Almost all displayed some sort of support, whether through actions on the field or statements publicly released against the president’s comments and supporting players’ right to protest.

Novak: “I thought that was really incredible that they went to the lengths to do that. I thought it was incredible. I was very struck by Jerry Jones going out and kneeling with his team [the Dallas Cowboys].”

It was a historic day in sports history as a protest at this scale against the President or the state of the country had never been seen at this scale before.

Novak: “I think it’s something unique to American culture and American society that something like sports is able to transcend something so important to our society like politics. Over the course of history, we’ve seen athletes have a tremendous impact both in their sport and in politics as well,” referring specifically to trailblazing athletes Mohammed Ali and Jackie Robinson.

There were many different forms of protest. Some teams chose to lock arms, some chose to kneel, and a few chose to remain in the locker room during the anthem. The Pittsburgh Steelers were one of these latter teams.

Marlay: “It was a team protest, they wanted to show a unification there more than with an anthem protest.”

However, not all the Steelers’ players remained in the locker room. Offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva, a former Army Ranger, chose to come out of the tunnel alone and put his hand over his heart for the national anthem.

Novak: “Villanueva was a special case in the fact that he was a veteran and served with the army rangers, and I very much understand that emotional attachment to the United States. I think he went out there due to a responsibility he felt due to his past.”

The timeline of the weekend played out strangely. Just after Sunday, Villanueva had the number one selling jersey in the NFL, showing many supported his solo act. His head coach, Mike Tomlin, and teammates such as James Harrison publicly stated they would have preferred 100 percent participation in their protest, as the purpose was to demonstrate that their unity as a team was greater than a political agenda. Then, surprisingly, Villanueva publicly apologized to his teammates for going out alone.

Marlay: “It clearly shows his mind and heart are in the right place.”

Many fans responded negatively to the protests, as happened with Kaepernick. One of the continued responses has been the drop in television ratings of professional football. The NFL has seen a decline in ratings over the past decade, and according to a poll by ESPN, the anthem protests are the leading reason as to why. DIRECTV, the company behind the very popular “NFL Sunday Ticket” television package even offered a refund to subscribers who cancelled their service specifically because of the protests.

Marlay: “It seems kind of strange to me to reward people for having a strong political stance or opinion on either side.”

It appears DIRECTV is providing a special service to specific politically-aligned people.

Novak: “I think that DIRECTV is definetily sending the wrong message and I think they’re pandering to whoever they want to prevent losing business. I think those responses are just silly frankly, we are all allowed to express our own viewpoints in the U.S. without feeling endangered. For the life of me I can’t understand it, people need to understand that these issues are a part of our society, that they do matter and that we have people that care very very passionately about these and we can’t expect them to compartmentalize these issues away from their everyday lives. Playing a professional sport gives you a platform to be an advocate for these issues.”

Marlay: “I don’t really get it either, as a fan, you buy and watch these things to watch football… I don’t get how this affects them viewing it.”

This response by a significant number of fans tuning out of the NFL puts the league in a strange spot. On the one hand, it is a constitutional right for each and every one of these players and coaches to protest. On the other, this loss in television revenue could equate to a loss of millions of dollars for the league and the owners. A big enough loss in revenue could push the league or owners to take some sort of action.

Marlay: “If you’re an owner, and you’re losing millions because of this, there’s probably going to be some sort of reaction. It’s a scary spot for professional football right now.”

Novak: “You could gridlock the NFL in doing something like that. I would expect significant infighting among the owners and the NFLPA would have a fit and could potentially file a lawsuit against the NFL.”

We both came to the conclusion that this puts the NFL in a perplexing spot as a whole and it will be interesting to see how the entirety of this plays out. This historic weekend in the NFL will almost certainly have a far reaching fallout, but it was a great moment in history to witness, and a pleasure to talk about with my colleague, Drew Novak.

Photo courtesy of ABC News.