The talk with Angela Cornell was very intriguing. It sparked a discussion regarding the legality of protest when one acts as an agent of their employer. The core of the discussion was legality versus morality, which is seems to be a recurring theme in a number of my classes. Is it right for someone to remain complacent in the face of adversity because that is what legally is right? Or is it better to compromise their social and financial position to ethically go against what a government entity has deemed deviant? It was great to get the perspective of a law professor.

The best part of the talk was the engagement Professor Cornell encouraged from the students in attendance. We all got an equal opportunity to express our ideas and opinions, and through discussion, PRofessor COrnell brought us to the current state of the law. We logically forged a path that led to what we thought should be the law, and then she made us cognizant of the downfall of such restrictions. It was very eye-opening. I would definitely attend a talk by her again if available.

I was so excited for this rose cafe. I am in the ILR School and I swear we talk about labor and law and labor law a lot. But in my classes it is normally just theories, definitions, and concepts. It was awesome seeing these theories, definitions, and concepts applied to a real life, current situation: Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the national anthem at a football game in protest of police brutality against blacks. I learned a lot about labor law during this discussion but also Professor Angela Cornell brought to our attention many important ideas and concepts. For instance, one idea that really stuck with me was that legality and morality do not always align. We are always taught to abide by the law but sometimes the law is not just and abiding by that law conflicts with what is morally correct. There will be instances when one can feel morally obligated to take a stance against something even though doing so, regardless of if it is done peacefully or not, is illegal. The most interesting part to me was the discussion on the allegations of collusion. There is a strong possibility that many people in the NFL are colluding to exclude Colin Kaepernick from the NFL. The arbitrator ruled that there is enough evidence of collusion to have a full blown hearing. In the end I think that, regardless of the backlash, Colin Kaepernick’s actions were a good, respectful way of starting a very difficult conversation on occurrences of racial injustice in America. It was additionally impressive how long this topic stayed in the media. It was smart of Kaepernick to kneel in such a public setting because his protest would probably not have been as effective if it had not happened on game days when people who would normally not care were watching.

Colin Kaepernick has topped headlines for the past 2 years over his decision of kneeling during the national anthem before the start of the NFL games that he played in. His decision was sparked by the overwhelming amounts of racial injustice. While his actions sparked both positive and negative responses, one of the major issues with his action was that his protests were during times in which he was technically working. While I do understand the issues that his protest creates under a labor relations standpoint, I personally do not believe that his protests would be as powerful if it were not when he did it. As a public figure, he used his publicity to bring light to issues that he did not agree with and since he believed that he could not stand for an anthem of a nation that does not stand with people like him, he used his public presence to show the community his disdain. I think that in regards to punishment towards Kaepernick for his actions, he is currently and has been experiencing a lot of hatred against him from the public as well as not even being able to play football due to a possible collusion amongst the NFL teams. Although we mentioned how the First Amendment does not apply in this situation due to the fact that the players protesting are doing so under their work hours, the fact that President Trump and Vice President Pence have declared their stances on this issue and even attempted to get the NFL players to all stand or be fined details how the involvement of the government in this situation should be something that the players can protest about. In a sense, even though the players in this situation were under working hours, their right to protest cannot necessarily be stripped from them.

Professor Angela Cornell led a Rose Cafe about Colin Kaepernick’s protest against racial injustice during the national anthem. She brought up an interesting point about moral and legal viewpoints. Most of us agree that, morally, he did the right thing. But was it within his legal right to do what he did? What do we do when moral and legal obligations don’t always align? I enjoyed learning more of the legal side of the argument, something that isn’t discussed as much. Professor Cornell talked about the National Labor Relations Act and its connection to the Great Depression. It gave power to workers to negotiate/improve terms and conditions of work and protects them against retaliation. I also found the conversation about Kaepernick signing on with Nike very interesting. It was a very calculated campaign because their stocks shot up to its highest level. Although this campaign obviously appeals to younger, more liberal audience, we also know that Nike donates a lot to conservative campaigns that support their business. I’m glad I was able to learn about the different perspectives of this controversy and how it is still relevant today.

I find the question for the efficiency of protests interesting. When a person needs to use professional life to express personal values because the protests do not bring a strong statement, we should definitely question about the usefulness of the form of protests. In particular, what can we improve on to make it more forceful but also not intruding other aspects(professional) of our lives?

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, I attended a Rose Cafe with Professor Angela Cornell. She led a discussion about public protest and the controversies surrounding Colin Kaepernick. Especially since I was relatively uninformed about the topic, her talk provided great insight into Kaepernick’s decision to kneel during the National Anthem. We discussed both the legal and ethical implications of Kaepernick’s public demonstration and considered whether his decision was the most appropriate one. Therefore, we needed to evaluate both sides of the argument from a variety of perspectives.

On one hand, Kaepernick is employed in the private sector with the NFL. Therefore, his actions directly reflect upon the organization. Well-known athletes like Kaepernick must always be mindful of their actions because they can be thrown under public scrutiny at any time. With the ubiquitous presence of the media in the modern age, public figures are in the spotlight constantly. Kaepernick could have expressed his views on discriminatory police brutality through alternative means. For example, he could have addressed the national problem during a separate press conference or through social media. Additionally, many people considered his kneel during the anthem to be incredibly disrespectful to those who served and currently serve in the military.

On the other hand, Kaepernick’s right to protest is protected under constitutional law. Kaepernick deliberately chose to protest during an NFL game to reach a greater audience, understanding that he would create a stir in the American media. Ultimately, I respect Kaepernick’s courage because he risked his professional career to make a statement about a matter he felt strongly about. He surely recognized the consequences before he took advantage of his celebrity platform. In the end, Kaepernick sacrificed his football career; NFL owners retaliated by colluding to keep him out of the league. His methodology was undoubtedly controversial. I completely understand why stakeholder groups like veterans and the NFL might take offense to his decision. However, his public protest was highly effective and garnered a lot of attention to police brutality against minority groups.

This past week, I attended a Rose Cafe with speaker Angela Cornell, a professor at Cornell Law. She is an expert on labor law and focused her discussion on Colin Kaepernick’s protest in the NFL. We all discussed the pros and cons of the protest, the NFL’s response, and Kaepernick’s collusion lawsuit that has recently been launched. As a big football fan, the whole situation has been interesting to follow. However, the most interesting part of this discussion was how labor law fits into this. Since I know way less about labor law than football, I learned way more from this part of the discussion than from any other part. I was under the impression that the NFL, as a private company, can do whatever it wants regarding the handling of its employees. However, there was an act passed by FDR at the end of the Great Depression which forces businesses to follow certain guidelines when handling their employees, particularly in unionized industries. Since sports are unionized, it is unclear whether or not the NFL handled the Kaepernick situation properly, since they did not consult the NFLPA on their actions, the legality of the actions is in question. While I am still not an expert on the laws governing businesses and labor, I do know that this situation is very intriguing and, as the lawsuit continues, will be one to watch closely.

Last week I had the pleasure of sitting in Dr. Angela Cornell’s discussion on the legal ramifications of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protest. The discussion was lively and I learned about several new developments in Kap’s case, including rumors of de facto exclusion from the NFL  thanks to collusion among NFL leaders. Dr. Cornell asked us several thought-provoking questions, including one I paraphrase here: Was Colin Kaepernick using his right to free speech and free protest correctly when he kneeled during the national anthem at the beginning of a game? Technically, he was on the job when he performed this act of protest against police brutality. On that note, however, the NFL is a holistic brand and therefore its players and affiliates are never technically off-duty; their actions reflect on their organization 24/7. I believe that Kaepernick was engaging his right to protest as a citizen, and as a black person in a country that has consistently proven hostile to black people; he intentionally used his platform as a public figure in the NFL to draw attention to an issue that affects him and his community every single day. Whether or not he was in the legal right is a valid question on some level, but in a larger sense, when the national anthem is playing, everyone in earshot is more than just a sports fan or a player or a coach; the anthem creates a solemn moment in which everyone remembers that we are all American, and Kap used that moment to bring attention to an issue that was taking the lives of innocent Americans daily.

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.

The reason for Colin Kaepernick kneeling was to address the police brutality against African American. Although he protested for a good cause, I think there are other ways to address this issue. Kneeling during the national anthem definitely gets everyone’s attention, but it also creates controversy that he disrespect the veterans of the nation. Now he is not signed by any NFL teams. He should address it using his social media because he is an influential figure. He could address his concern at the beginning of a press conference or an interview.  If doing it once is not enough to call everyone’s attention, do it multiple times will raise awareness of the issue.

Ever since Colin Kaepernick took the knee for the national anthem, it has become a national controversy of whether that was appropriate, disrespectful, or heroic. It was interesting during the Coffee Chat, as we had Angela Cornell, a professor at our Law School who specializes in labor law, speak to us about the legality of his actions. Although we at first argued that Colin and other football players have the right to voice their opinion and/or silently protest because they are protected under the first amendment, Ms. Cornell said that when one is employed under the private sector, their first amendment rights are somewhat not protected. This, I was not aware of and I found it interesting and understandable, as the NFL saw their business being punished due to the protesting. Another point to this was brought up, as someone mentioned that if that’s the case then Kaepernick is always on the clock (i.e. Public figure on twitter, instagram, etc.) thus, he would never, in theory, be able to voice his personal opinions or protest. Although this talk was very interesting, I felt that the most unfortunate thing about this was the miscommunication that’s going on with the reason for the protest. Trump, of course, is a large part as to why many Americans believe that Kaepernick is purposefully disrespecting veterans by kneeling. But that’s not the purpose of his protest. Kaepernick, himself, on many occasions, has made it clear that the reason for his kneeling during the anthem is that he can’t stand for a country that continues to oppress black people and people of color. It’s fine that there is a national controversy over this subject, but before we start a debate, it’s important to understand the true reason as to why Kaepernick started kneeling in the first place.

During last week’s cafe, I had the pleasure of listening to Professor Angela Cornell speak about a very important issue. Prior to this talk, I’ve had very little knowledge about the debacle with Colin Kaepernick. I’ve had the general idea that Kaepernick had knelt during the National Anthem to protest injustices and that he had received a lot of backlash for it. But Professor Angela’s talk went more in-depth with the issue and the consequences of this one football player’s actions.

Professor Angela’s talk was very insightful because we talked about the issue arguing on both sides rather than just focusing on Kaepernick’s perspective. While many of us that attended seemingly supported Kaepernick’s action, Professor Cornell challenged us to think of an argument against Kaepernick’s actions. I had never viewed the issue in this way and it allowed me to get a grasp of the issue as a whole rather than the tunnel vision perspective that I had. Previously, I fully supported Kaepernick’s actions to protest and believed he had every right to do so. However, now I understand those that felt his actions were too much. As we’ve discussed, Kaepernick’s decision to protest while working in the private sector proved very detrimental to his case. Kaepernick’s decision to kneel while on the job could be compared to a professor protesting or speaking against his/her views during a lecture; I would not want to hear such protest while the professor is on the job. Kaepernick had no legal right to protest because his first amendment rights would be limited while on the job. However, many were against him because they viewed his action as a violent crime. I personally do not think Kaepernick caused any harm to others by choosing to protest during the National Anthem. Many would argue that there were more efficient, less controversial ways to protest and express his views. But Kaepernick was placed on spotlight during the football game and had the most impact by kneeling during this very specific time. This decision was the reason that we’re still talking about the issue and why it’s the most effective way to protest because it starts the conversation for change.

At this week’s Rose Café, I had the pleasure of engaging in a discussion regarding labor law with Professor Angela Cornell, clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School. During our group conversation, Dr.Cornell primarily spoke about the Colin Kaepernick debate and the legal implications surrounding his decision to kneel during the National Anthem prior to football games. As an avid football fan, I have been following the Kaepernick situation closely. However, I do not always get the opportunity to examine the situation through a legal lens, which is why I valued hearing from Dr.Cornell on the subject.

One of the questions that transpired during our discussion was whether or not Kaepernick’s actions were legal, since he is employed in the private sector through the NFL. I was also curious about this question, as I did not know whether Kaepernick had a legal responsibility to stand for the Anthem if his employer, the NFL, mandated him to do so. According to Dr.Cornell, due to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and due to the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL Players Association and the NFL, Colin Kaepernick’s right to protest was actually protected under law. Additionally, the league could not enforce its anthem policy it passed prior to this season, as it did not consult the NFL Players Association prior to its decision.

Thus, I found our talk with Dr.Cornell very interesting and engaging. I especially liked how she was personable and wanted to understand our perspectives on the situation. The next time I hear people discussing the Kaepernick debate, I can now be a more informed contributor to the conversation.

In our discussion of Colin Kaepernick, a single issue was bugging me: the question of permissibility. This is not a question of the legal implications of Kaepernick’s acts within the labor law context; it is one of personal opinion, but one I feel may be important in terms of how we approach these discussions. The question of whether or not Kaepernick’s act of kneeling constituted a “permissible” form of protest is fraught with issues, the first being that standard of what is and what is not permissible is always disproportionately applied to people of color. In Kaepernick’s case, there have been a number of acts committed by white players that have ranged from insensitive comments about particular social groups to acts of violence. And yet, when these players commit such acts, they are not dropped by their teams or banned from playing–their acts go unnoticed, and are often not followed up with questions of branding and “image” for the NFL. Which begs the question: Why is Kaepernick’s decision to non-violently protest police brutality such a contentious issue, where acts of extreme violence committed by NFL players is not? If there is a difference in how these acts are received (and there is), how do we then resolve this question? How can we both apply standards that protect the rights of players like Kaepernick to protest, while forcing the NFL to take accountability for the culture it breeds? Perhaps the question should not be whether or not Kaepernick’s action constituted a permissible form of protest, but whether the notion of standards of permissibility are productive, or at risk of being grossly misapplied to shut out future forms of resistance.