NBA All-Star Kyrie Irving has recently been banned from participating with the Brooklyn Nets indefinitely until he is vaccinated, per the guidelines and mandate set by the state of New York. In the state of New York, at least one dose of the COVID-19 Vaccine is required to be allowed to enter any large indoor space and Kyrie Irving has refused to take the shot by all means. His refusal has led to much controversy and a lot of negativity directed at Irving. His reasoning for not getting vaccinated is to, “be a voice for the voiceless” as he believes that no person should be forced to do something that they do not want to do with their own bodies. Using his status and power, Kyrie’s personal morals have become visible and brought to light while being slandered in the media.
This has been the central topic on ESPN outlets for weeks, with countless articles also being published within the past month. Mostly all and each of these stories all consist of the same focal point; Kyrie is being problematic and even some go as far as to say he is being selfish with his decision to remain unvaccinated. Is it right to question his own moral values and to invalidate them? Irving has publicly stated, “I am staying grounded in what I believe in. It is as simple as that. It is not about being anti-vax or about being on one side or the other. It is just really about being true to what feels good for me”. Is it okay for analysts, journalists, and other athletes to speak down on one’s own beliefs, just cause it is in the public light? We believe that everyone is entitled to their own decisions, and as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences then Kyrie has the right to do so, despite if it opposes popular belief.