Feature: Sport and Human Rights
No.48
September 2006
 
  print / save view 

Olympism and Human Rights:
Ideals in Action
Mary A. Hums & Eli A. Wolff
 

Introduction
This essay explores the potential for the philosophy and ideology of Olympism to serve as a real and practical vehicle to promote human rights within the arena of sport. Is it possible for a philosophy of life to exist as a functional catalyst for social change? This article defines and outlines the framework of Olympism, and the connection with the International Olympic Academy, the educational centre and home of the teachings of Olympism. The authors then explore the application of Olympism to promote human rights within sport, highlighting and analyzing specific initiatives and activities utilizing and embodying Olympism. This approach is in line with Bhuvanendra (1998/9), who stated, “As Olympism and human rights have the same philosophical profile, comparative teaching of these two concepts would be well received not only by the academic community but also by the practitioners of sport” (p. 19).

Sport and Human Rights
The United Nations began setting human rights standards in the mid-20th century. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (United Nations, 1948, p. 1).
Authors have linked sport and human rights throughout the years (Bhuvanendra, 1998/9; Kidd & Donnelly, 2000; Lapchick, 1975; McArdle & Giulianotti, 2003; Wolff & Hums, 2006). Documents of the International Olympic Committee are consistent with the United Nations philosophy on human rights. The Olympic Charter, the supreme governing document of the Olympic Movement, specifically states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” (International Olympic Committee, 2004, p. 9).

The Meaning of Olympism
When one hears the word “Olympism”, many things may come to mind. People may think of extraordinary athletes, inspiring performances, well-organized Games and medal stand anthems. What was the vision of Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic movement? What is a definition of Olympism? According to the International Olympic Academy, “Olympism is a philosophy of life, where blending sport and culture with art and education aims to combine in balanced whole the human qualities of body, will and mind. Olympism is a way of life based on respect for human dignity and fundamental universal ethical principles, on the joy of effort and participation, on the educational role of good example, a way of life based on mutual understanding” (International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 12). This definition goes hand in hand with the notion of respecting human rights.
The International Olympic Academy, located in Olympia, Greece, just five minutes walk from the archeological site of the ancient Olympic stadium, promotes the spirit of Olympism in modern times. “The International Olympic Academy functions as a multicultural and interdisciplinary centre that aims at studying, enriching and promoting Olympism” (International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 6). Through sessions for young participants, post-graduate students, educators, National Olympic Academy directors/officials and sport journalists, the ideals of Olympism are presented, discussed and disseminated to people from around the world. The IOA itself reflects the spirit of Olympism where people from all over the world come together to live in peace and promote human rights.
In this modern age, perhaps one may think these notions seem a bit idealistic. How can we see the spirit of Olympism in action in today’s world? How does Olympism in sport remain alive today in a world where athletes and sport governing bodies must consider how to balance living in the temple or the agora? (Martinkova, 2006).

Examples of Olympism in Action
Examples of Olympism and human rights are present today just as they were in Pierre de Coubertin’s time. To quote de Coubertin, “Olympism is not a system, it is a state of mind. It can permeate a wide variety of modes of expression and no single race or era cam claim to have the monopoly of it” (International Olympic Academy, 2006, p. 6). Some current examples include the Olympic Truce, the IOC’s Women in Sport Commission, the International Paralympic Committee’s Position of the IPC on Human Rights and finally the actions of individual athletes.
The first example is the notion of the Olympic Truce. In ancient times, when the Games approached, the city states of ancient Greece declared a cessation of fighting so that the athletes, artists, pilgrims and their families could safely travel to and from the Games (International Olympic Committee, 2006a). This “Sacred Truce” formed the principle underlying today’s notion of the Olympic Truce. In 2001, the International Olympic Committee established the International Olympic Truce Foundation and the International Olympic Truce Centre. The Centre has locations in Lausanne, Athens and Olympia (International Olympic Truce Centre, n.d.). Through the Centre and the Foundation, the IOC aims to:
  • raise awareness and encourage political leaders to act in favour of peace;
  • mobilise youth for the promotion of the Olympic ideals;
  • establish contacts between communities in conflict;
  • offer humanitarian support in countries at war;
  • to create a window of opportunities for dialogue, reconciliation and the resolution of conflicts” (International Olympic Committee, 2006, Its Relevance for Today section).
In 2001, United Nations resolutions related to the modern notion of the Olympic Truce were endorsed by member nations. According to Secretary General Kofi Anan, “This calls for warring parties to lay down their arms while athletes from the entire community of nations meet under the noble flame of the Olympic torch” (United Nations, 2001, p. 1). Living without war would certainly be seen as a basic human right and in this way, the spirit of Olympism can be tied directly to preserving human rights. It is hoped that as the competing athletes can gather in peace, so too can the nations of the world.
As the Olympic Charter states, sport should be practiced without discrimination, and this would include discrimination based on sex. In 2004, the International Olympic Committee established the Women in Sport Commission. According to the International Olympic Committee (2006c, Mission section), “As a leader of the Olympic Movement, whose first objective is to promote Olympism and develop sport worldwide, the IOC has constantly played a complementary role to set up a positive trend to enhance women’s participation in sport at all levels, and especially in the last decades”. The programme and activities of this Commission include promotion of women and sport in the Olympic Games, promotion of women sport leaders, support activities and advocacy and information (International Olympic Committee, 2006b).
The ideals of Olympism can also link the Paralympic Movement and the Olympic Movement (Landry, 1995; Wolff, 2005). According to Wolff (2005, p. 4), “Given the emerging global understanding of the rights of persons with disabilities, Olympism and the Olympic Movement have a unique opportunity to lead the way towards the inclusion of persons with disabilities in all areas of life, particularly the Olympic arena.” The mission of the International Paralympic Committee contains the following phrase “To promote Paralympic sport without discrimination for political, religious, economic, disability, gender, sexual orientation or race reasons” (International Paralympic Committee, 2006, Vision and Mission section). In addition, in 2004 the International Paralympic Committee released its Position Statement of the IPC on Human Rights. This contains the following statement, “The IPC believes all individuals should enjoy access and opportunities for leisure, recreation, and sporting activities and such rights be granted and guarded by the legal and administrative systems by the responsible governments and communities” (International Paralympic Committee, 2004, p. 1). These statements are consistent with the notion of Olympism stated earlier in this article and illustrate how fundamental tenets of the Paralympic Movement reflect Olympism.

Athletes Promoting Olympism and Human Rights
In addition to examining the role of sport organizers and sport organizations in promoting human rights through Olympism, it is important to examine the contributions of athletes in promoting Olympism and human rights. Oftentimes, athletes can be the catalysts and voices bringing attention to human rights concerns and issues. Athletes are visible and the message of an athlete can have an important impact towards influencing social change (Wolff & Hums, 2006). Although athletes can be powerful change agents, athletes face pressures to conform and to not challenge the status quo. Athletes promoting Olympism and human rights uphold these values on and off the field, living Olympism as a philosophy of life.
Olympic sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith of the United States were early pioneers in the role of athletes to promote Olympism and human rights. Through the Olympic Project for Human Rights, these athletes symbolically protested discrimination and segregation of the black athlete. Norwegian Olympic speed skater Johann Olav Koss may be one of the most visible athlete ambassadors of human rights, founding Olympic Aid, now known as Right to Play, calling attention to the rights of children around the world to engage in sport and play activities and opportunities. Koss has emerged as one of the leading voices articulating the right to sport and play for all the youth of the world.
Olympians like United States rower Anita DeFrantz, whose efforts as Chair of the IOC Women in Sport Commission, promote equality of women in sport, and Canadian runner Bruce Kidd who worked to end apartheid in sport, connect Olympism to the promotion of human rights. These athletes have paved the way for current Olympians, like Paralympic Marathon and Athletics medalist Cheri Blauwet. to address the rights of persons with disabilities in sport, and Olympic speed skater Nathaniel Mills to articulate the importance of peace, humanity and universalism. The emergence of athlete human rights activists indicates the recognition by athletes of their positive role to promote human rights for all.

Conclusion
As these examples clearly illustrate, Olympism is an important framework for considering and promoting human rights. More than ideology, Olympism can become a practical and useful agent for social change in sport. Olympism can be useful within and beyond the Olympic Movement and has the potential to also be applicable in many aspects of life beyond sport. Examining Olympism and human rights will continue into the future, for as Cahill stated, “Therefore, whilst Olympism has achieved a degree of success for its human rights ideals, more attention will be required in the 21st century to the rights of humans – as athletes, as spectators, and as communities…” (Cahill, 1999, p. 3). Thus, the spirit of Olympism will continue to manifest itself in the form of actions to promote human rights.

References
Bhuvanendra, T.A. (December 1998- January 1999). Human rights in the realm of sport. Olympic Review, 26, 15-35.
Cahill, J. (1999). The ideals of Olympism. Proceedings of the Symposium on Sport and Human Rights, Sydney, Australia.
International Olympic Academy. (2006). International Olympic Academy. Athens, Greece: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2004). Olympic charter. Lausanne, Switzerland: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2006a). Olympic Truce – History. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/truce/truce_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2006b). Programme and activities. Retrieved on 4 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/ women/activities/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2006c). Promotion of women in sport. Retrieved on 5 August 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/ women/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Truce Centre. (n.d.). The Foundation and the Centre. Retrieved 5 August 2006 from http://www.olympictruce.org/html/centrpt1.html
International Paralympic Committee. (2004). Position statement of the IPC on human rights. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from http://www.paralympic.org/release/ Main_Sections_Menu/News/Paralympic_News/Days/IPC_Position_Statement_HR.pdf.
International Paralympic Committee. (2006). Vision and mission. Retrieved 4 August 2006 from http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sections_Menu/ IPC/About_the_IPC/Vision_and_Mission/.
Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Human rights in sports. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(2), 131–148.
Landy, F. (1995). Paralympic Games and social integration. In M. de Morgas Sta & M. Botella (Eds.). The keys of success: The social, sporting, economic, and communications impact of Barcelona ’92. Bellaterra: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Automona de Barcelona.
Lapchick, R. (1975). The politics of race and international sport: The case of South Africa. Greenwood Press.
Martinkova, I. (2006, July). The ethics of human performance. Address given at the International Olympic Academy 7th International Session for Educators and Officials of Higher Institutes of Physical Education, Olympia, Greece.
McArdle, D., & Giulianotti, R. (2003). Sport and human rights in the global society. London: Routledge.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. New York, NY: Author.
United Nations. (2001, July 5). Secretary General says Olympic Truce can offer window of time to open dialogue and pause to relieve suffering. Retrieved 5 August 2006 from http://www.un.org/news/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7797.doc.htm.
Wolff, E.A. (2005). Olympians with disabilities and the 2004 Athens Games: Triumphs,
challenges, and future opportunities.
Athens, Greece: International Olympic Academy.
Wolff, E.A., & Hums, M.A. (2006). Sport and human rights. The Chronicle of Kinesiology & Physical Education in Higher Education, 17(2), 3-4.

Contact:
Dr. Mary A. Hums
University of Louisville
USA
Mhums@louisville.edu

Eli A. Wolff
Northeastern University Center for the Study of Sport in Society
Boston
USA
e.wolff@neu.edu



http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5