In an article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, I read about research being done on the displacement of homeless youth during the Vancouver Olympics. Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly, from Carleton University in Ottawa, has been interviewing marginalized people about how the Olympics coming to town has affected their lives, and she wonders if the money spent on the Games couldn't have been better spent to address the city's maladies. Her research represents one of the biggest topics fueling opposition to hosting the Olympics: Games or butter?
According to her Carleton web page, Dr. Kennelly is currently exploring "the urban effects of the Olympic Games for low-income, homeless, and street-involved young people," which I think is terribly important to consider for the long-term sustainability of the Olympic Movement. I do not think that the IOC or respective organizing committees should see such research as an attack, but as an evaluation that could result in a more respectful, sustainable and harmonious event.
I firmly believe that the Games can be hosted without cities going bankrupt, or social issues being swept aside, or those in need falling deeper into poverty because the Olympics took a priority over them. The Olympic Movement, like cities, are nothing without people, and the IOC would be wise to stop awarding the Games to the city who promises to build the biggest stadiums, spend the most money, and marginalize its poorest citizens. The Olympics can only be a force for good when host cities develop a clear civic conscience.
