Olympic athletes deserve rights to freedom of speech, despite guidelines meant to silence them.

The International Olympic Committee is one of those organizations that always says it’s changing so that it never has to actually change all that much. The IOC tinkers around the edges of reform and then trumpets this tinkering as if it has shaken up the Olympic world. This dynamic was in full effect after July 2 when the IOC released new guidelines for the notorious Rule 50 in the Olympic Charter that states, “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

The new guidelines place limitations on when and where Olympians can “express their views.” While athletes can talk politics during press conferences and team meetings—spaces where Olympians have long been free to speak out—they are still prohibited from “expressing their views” on the medal stand, during the opening and closing ceremonies, in the Olympic Village, and on the field of play during competition. The new policy does allow Olympians to express themselves “on the field of play prior to the start of competition” so long as their act is “not disruptive” and doesn’t target specific individuals, countries, organizations or “their dignity.”

These guidelines clash with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which unequivocally states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.”

In response to the IOC’s announcement, the European Elite Athletes Association—a multi-sport collection of trade unions from 17 European countries—did not mince words. The group’s statement read: “The IOC’s approach to freedom of speech and expression consists of an attempt to restrict, redefine and control the way that the athletes exercise their fundamental human right. Threatening to sanction athletes who peacefully protest on issues such as racism is not only inconsistent with human rights, but also goes against the values that the IOC claims to support.”

There is a lot to protest in Olympics Land. In the last couple weeks, we’ve seen jaw-dropping outbursts of anti-Black racism related to the Games. The international federation that governs swimming (FINA) announced that it would ban swim caps designed for athletes with afros. (Feeling the pressure from activists and purveyors of common sense, FINA agreed to revisit the ban.) After a drug test picked up marijuana in U.S. sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson’s system—which she ingested when mourning her biological mother’s death—she was unceremoniously scratched from the 100-meter dash in Tokyo; the racialized drug war reared its ugly head once again.

This—and much more—demands dissent. This pattern is a reminder that the Olympic Charter’s Rule 50 is a thinly veiled gambit to maintain the existing power relations, not only at the Olympic Games but also in broader society.

Dave Zirin writes a regular column at edgeofsports.com. Jules Boykoff is a professor of political science at Pacific University and author of four books on the Olympics.