Candace Owens, a prominent conservative commentator, recently called on the National Federation to strip Brittney Griner of her gold medal after the WNBA star refused to stand during the national anthem at the Social Justice Freedom protests. Owens’s statement—“Send her back to Russia, that medal is for those who respect the country”—has ignited a heated debate about patriotism, protest, and the intersection of sports and politics.

At the heart of this controversy is the ongoing struggle to define what it means to be patriotic in America. For Owens, patriotism is closely tied to visible acts of respect for national symbols, such as standing during the national anthem. Her call to strip Griner of her gold medal stems from the belief that such honors should be reserved for those who publicly demonstrate their respect for the country. Owens’s stance reflects a broader conservative view that equates patriotism with unwavering support for the flag, the anthem, and other national symbols.

However, Griner’s decision to kneel during the anthem was a form of protest against racial injustice and police brutality—a stance that many others view as a deeply patriotic act. From this perspective, Griner’s protest was not a rejection of America but a call for the nation to live up to its highest ideals of equality and justice. This form of patriotism is rooted in the belief that true loyalty to a country involves holding it accountable and working to improve it.

The demand to strip Griner of her medal also raises questions about the role of athletes in political and social movements. Historically, athletes have used their platforms to draw attention to issues of social justice, from Muhammad Ali’s opposition to the Vietnam War to Colin Kaepernick’s protests against police violence. These actions often provoke strong reactions because they challenge the traditional view that sports should be apolitical. However, sports have always been intertwined with politics, and athletes, like all citizens, have the right to express their beliefs.

Owens’s suggestion that Griner should be “sent back to Russia” is particularly inflammatory. Griner was detained in Russia under harsh conditions, and her release was secured through a controversial prisoner exchange. The comment reflects a broader sentiment that those who criticize the U.S. do not deserve to live here—a perspective that ignores the complexities of dissent in a democratic society. In a free country, the right to protest is as fundamental as the right to celebrate national symbols.

Moreover, the idea of stripping Griner of her medal overlooks the fact that athletic achievements are earned through skill, dedication, and hard work—qualities that transcend political beliefs. The gold medal Griner won represents her excellence in basketball, not her political views. To take it away because of her protest would be to conflate athletic achievement with political conformity, which undermines the principles of both sportsmanship and free expression.

In conclusion, Candace Owens’s call to strip Brittney Griner of her gold medal is a reflection of the broader cultural clash over what it means to be patriotic. While some see standing for the anthem as a fundamental expression of respect for the country, others view protest as an equally valid form of patriotism. The debate also highlights the ongoing tension between the role of athletes in political discourse and the expectation that sports remain separate from politics. Ultimately, the question of whether Griner should be stripped of her medal is about more than just one athlete’s actions—it is about how America understands and values the rights of its citizens to express dissent.