OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
It has become commonplace for companies and even sports teams have taken to promote LGBTQ “pride” and having their employees and players conform, but not everyone is on board. For one player in the National Hockey League, a line in the sand was drawn as he refused to participate in virtue signaling.
Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov did not join his team for the pre-game warm-up on Tuesday prior to a game against the Anaheim Ducks because he did not want to wear the “Pride Night” jersey, ESPN reported.
The Russian Orthodox hockey player said that he wanted “to stay true to myself and my religion,” but that “I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices.”
ESPN reported:
Before the game, the Flyers wore Pride-themed jerseys and used sticks wrapped in rainbow tape, both of which are being auctioned off by Flyers Charities, with proceeds going toward their efforts to grow the game in diverse communities. Provorov was the only Flyers player who didn’t have a jersey or a stick up for auction after the game. The Flyers released a statement before Provorov’s postgame comments.
“The Philadelphia Flyers organization is committed to inclusivity and is proud to support the LGBTQ+ community. Many of our players are active in their support of local LGBTQ+ organizations, and we were proud to host our annual Pride Night again this year. The Flyers will continue to be strong advocates for inclusivity and the LGBTQ+ community,” the team said.
ESPN requested comment from the league and said that players are “free to decide which initiatives to support.”
“Hockey is for Everyone is the umbrella initiative under which the League encourages Clubs to celebrate the diversity that exists in their respective markets, and to work to achieve more welcoming and inclusive environments for all fans,” it said to ESPN. “Clubs decide whom to celebrate, when, and how — with League counsel and support. Players are free to decide which initiatives to support, and we continue to encourage their voices and perspectives on social and cultural issues.”
John Tortorellam, the team’s coach, said he did not consider scratching the player for not participating in warmups.
“With Provy, he’s being true to himself and to his religion,” he said. “This has to do with his belief and his religion. It’s one thing I respect about Provy: He’s always true to himself. That’s where we’re at with that.”
#Flyers Ivan Provorov on his Pride Night pregame boycott :
“My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion.” pic.twitter.com/YSFKvkyEJC— Dan Gelston (@APgelston) January 18, 2023
It has been a fantastic month for sports players who have declined to participate in woke activities.
Kiersten Hening, a former Virginia Tech women’s soccer player, has reached a settlement in her lawsuit against a coach who benched her after she refused an order to kneel for the National Anthem.
She was reportedly benched by coach Charles Adair because she would not kneel as a social justice statement was read, The New York Post reported.
Kiersten Hening, who was a midfielder/defender for the Hokies from 2018 to 2020, sued coach Charles “Chugger” Aidair in 2021 on First Amendment grounds, which federal Judge Thomas Cullen announced on Dec. 2 can proceed to trial.
Hening alleged that Adair was not a fan of her political views and that she often differed from her teammates on social justice issues during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020.
Hening further explained in the lawsuit that while she “supports social justice and believes that black lives matter,” she “does not support BLM the organization,” citing its “tactics and core tenets of its mission statement, including defunding the police.”
She said that she was verbally abused by the coach at halftime of the game against UVA, for which she was benched, where he said she was “b–tching and moaning” as he stuck his finger in her face.
“Hening, who had been a major on-field contributor for two years prior to the 2020 season, also asserts that Adair removed her from the starting lineup for the next two games and drastically reduced her playing time in those games because she had engaged in this protected First Amendment activity. As a result, Hening resigned from the team after the third game of the season,” the judge said.
“As a freshman, Hening averaged 76 minutes of playing time; as a sophomore, nearly 88,” the judge said. “But during the Clemson game [the next game after the kneeling incident], Hening only played 29 minutes, and, at the UNC game, just 5.”
Adair asked to dismiss the lawsuit, noting that two other players who did not kneel did not face reduced playing time.
“Ultimately, Adair may convince a jury that this coaching decision was based solely on Hening’s poor play during the UVA game, but the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hening, cannot reach that conclusion as a matter of law,” Judge Cullen.
“While the US Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit may not have addressed the novel factual circumstances presented here—i.e., a college coach allegedly retaliating against a player for refusing to kneel with her coaches and teammates in support of perceived unity and social justice—the core constitutional principle is both clearly established and fundamental to a free society, and especially to an institution of higher education,” he said.
“Whatever his motivations, the court has no trouble concluding that Adair’s conduct towards Hening — publicly chastising her, removing her from the starting lineup, and reducing her playing time — would tend to chill a person of ordinary firmness’s exercise of her First Amendment rights,” the judge said.
“The evidence of Adair’s apparent views on this issue (as reflected in his alleged criticism of ‘All Lives Matter’ supporters) and Hening’s well-known conservative leanings and lack of support for BLM further support an inference that Adair had a retaliatory motive when he criticized, and later benched, Hening for refusing to kneel during the Unity Statement,” he said.
