Are athletes who kneel during the national anthem making their point in the most effective way possible, or are they disrespecting the American flag and all it stands for? President Trump has famously weighed into this volatile public debate, further inflaming passions on both sides. Whenever this argument is discussed, it has been viewed from many perspectives, but the idea of unity rarely seems to enter the conversation. In fact, in some cases, the public rhetoric surrounding this subject has resulted in the perception of a wider racial schism in America. But on Wednesday night, October 18, the San Antonio Spurs sought to change this situation with an appeal for unity. Screened on a Jumbotron, their message emphasized “commonality” as a basis for mutual understanding, and included the words:

We feel there is a significant commonality in all of us that allows our community to be so special. That commonality should include aspirations for social justice, freedom of speech in its many forms, and equal opportunity for education, and economic advancement regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or religion. It is our hope that we can, as a community, inspire and evoke real change. We ask that you join with us in your daily lives in the pursuit of equality. And in that, we honor our country by exercising demands for what this great nation has promised and what our military continues to fight for (Washington Post)

While this message acknowledges the uniqueness of individuals, it also urges the common goal, of uniting the Spurs’ own community as well as society on a nationwide level. This reminded me of the rhetorical practice of Nyaya, as described in an article by Keith Lloyd, “Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective: Implications in the Nyaya Sutra.” The Spurs’ statement can be interpreted as embodying qualities of Nyaya, of which Lloyd explains “the rhetor’s goal is not self-expression, persuasion, or winning, but a ‘seeing together.’” In this context, the Spurs’ message is a departure from the common public rhetoric on this subject, in which rhetors see no value in their opponents themselves or in their opponents’ opinions, demanding that everyone agree with the rhetor’s beliefs. Instead, the Spurs’ statement is an attempt at defusing the situation by extending an invitation to those with opposing views to reach a common understanding which is beneficial for both sides. Lloyd stated in a recent Skype conversation that when engaging in Nyaya, what matters is the way the participants approach the debate. For example, Nyaya focuses on honesty, seeks harmony and avoids contentious power struggles. The way the Spurs are seeking unity through an invitation for agreement marks a welcome change in the recent inflammatory public rhetoric. If thoughtful responses follow the example of their invitation, the result will hopefully develop into a more concordant and respectful conversation.