NFL Removes “End Racism” from End Zones Ahead of Super Bowl

You’re reading the Code Switch newsletter, written by Gene Demby.

Subscribe here to receive the newsletter in your inbox, and listen to the Code Switch podcast to explore how race influences our lives.

NFL Takes Down “End Racism” Message for Super Bowl

Attention sports fans and social observers: the Super Bowl is just around the corner, and with it comes another wave of public discourse. But amidst the excitement of football, concerns have arisen over the NFL’s decision to remove the “End Racism” message from their end zones.

This move follows a pattern in American corporate culture, particularly in large, influential institutions, where there appears to be a softening stance toward President Trump’s priorities.

A Symbol for Change: The “End Racism” Stencil

The “End Racism” statement was first introduced by the NFL in 2020, following the brutal murder of George Floyd and the widespread protests that ensued across the country. The NFL’s commitment to combating racism was seen as a positive step towards social responsibility.

Interpreting the NFL’s Decision

However, removing the “End Racism” message is interpreted by many as a downplaying of the league’s efforts towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This decision comes at a time when Trump is in attendance at the game. Many believe that the NFL’s actions are motivated by a desire to avoid backlash from the president.

The Trump Administration’s Stance on DEI

The Trump administration had been critical of DEI initiatives, particularly targeting such programs at federal agencies. President Trump’s statements and actions led to similar moves by other major corporations, including Amazon, Meta, and Target, which began to roll back their DEI efforts significantly.

Continuation of DEI Initiatives

Commissioner Roger Goodell has clarified that the decision to remove the stenciling is unrelated to Trump’s presence at the game. He asserts that the NFL’s DEI programs, such as the Rooney Rule, remain intact. According to the commissioner, he does not believe that the league’s DEI efforts conflict with the administration’s stance on diversity initiatives.

The league has assured stakeholders that it plans to continue supporting diversity and equity in all facets of its operations.

Broad Media Fallout

Unfortunately, the NFL is not alone in facing pressure from Trump’s administration.

Major newsrooms across the country have either settled or are on the brink of settling lawsuits involving the president. These settlements range from ABC paying $15 million to CBS preparing for similar suits.

NPR itself has come under scrutiny, with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans promising investigations into the outlet’s coverage and funding.

Anticipatory Obedience: A Concern?

Some critics argue that institutions are showing “anticipatory obedience” to key figures in the Trump administration. This concept, coined by historian Timothy Snyder, describes how individuals in a society may start to comply with expected future actions of an authoritarian government before those actions are even taken.

“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

Trump Administration’s Inconsistent Execution

Ezra Klein, a New York Times columnist, points out that despite the flurry of executive actions by the Trump administration, many of the intended policies have faced setbacks. Issues such as poor rollouts, judicial challenges, and condemnation from global leaders have thwarted the administration’s attempts to dismantle established diversity and inclusion programs.

Klein suggests that the Trump White House is governing in a manner akin to a football blitz. Designed to keep citizens alert and deferential, this strategy aims to maintain control by sowing confusion and apprehension. However, similar to how football players navigate a blitz by focusing on their objectives, it’s crucial for institutions to stay principled and continue their initiatives.

Implications for Social Movements

The NFL’s decision raises broader questions about the impact of authoritarian rhetoric on social movements and responsible corporate governance. While the league itself maintains that it will continue to prioritize DEI, the underlying message of removing visible symbols of social justice can be interpreted as a concession.

This move underscores a growing tension between the NFL’s commitment to social responsibility and the actions of its leadership and the administration it operates under.

Next Steps for the NFL

The NFL will have to navigate this challenge carefully. Demonstrating continued commitment to its DEI programs and social justice initiatives will be crucial in maintaining public trust and integrity.

Given the context, the NFL must find a balance between respecting the administration’s stance and staying true to its larger goals. This includes transparent communication with stakeholders and the public to clarify any misunderstandings.

Conclusion: Standing Ground

As the Super Bowl approaches, the NFL’s decision to remove the “End Racism” stenciling provides a lens through which to examine the broader implications of authoritarian governance on corporate America.

It is essential for institutions to stand by their values and principles, regardless of external pressures. The NFL’s actions, in particular, will be closely watched for signs of their enduring commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Whether this decision reflects a genuine re-evaluation of their stance or is a preemptive measure to maintain operational harmony with the current administration remains to be seen. However, the NFL must continue to stand for what it believes in, demonstrating leadership in addressing racial injustice.

For now, the focus will be on the game itself, with performances by Kendrick Lamar, SZA, and Jon Batiste. But the broader context of this decision will undoubtedly shape discussions and debates surrounding corporate responsibility and social justice.

What are your thoughts on this decision? Are you concerned about the NFL’s apparent shift? Let us know in the comments below.

Feel free to share this article on social media and subscribe to the Code Switch newsletter to stay informed about the intersection of race and culture in the news.