This week, I listened to Professor Angela Cornell talk about the legal circumstances surrounding the Colin Kaepernick football-kneeling controversy. Throughout the talk, I was impressed with how Professor Cornell tried to have the opinions of both sides aired in the room, even if they were not both equally represented by those in the audience. Indeed, I believe that much of the bitterness of this debate has arisen from an inability on both sides to understand the perspective of the other, as well as a tendency to reject the other sides’ reasons for their beliefs as insignificant compared with their own. In addition, I was intrigued by Professor Cornell’s particular attention to the legal particulars of the case, such as whether Kaepernick’s actions were protected by the law or not. Given the highly emotional nature of the case, for both parties, I believe a focus on what is, rather than a debate on what should or should be, helped bring me to a clearer understanding of the case, especially since I was not intimately familiar at all with it beforehand.