The Giants have been disappointing me for decades. Not because of their politics, but because they regularly steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Usually, spectacularly. My first thought on hearing that 2025 first-round draft picks Carter and Dart may be annoyed with each other was, “Here we go, another season down the drain.”

Some saw the quarterback of a New York franchise supporting President Trump as a problem. First, Dart represents a team in New York. While Dart is from Utah, where supporting President Trump may be par for the course, New York City is a very different political ecosystem. Those people will be buying tickets and may not want to sit in a freezing stadium cheering for a Trump supporter. God forbid, they may decide to watch the Jets instead. Perhaps it was not the smartest move to make that political statement.

Second, Dart is the quarterback of a major sports franchise with a fanbase spanning the globe. Many argue that the quarterback position is unique in sports, serving as a leader of the team, so they should be neutral. The rationale is that embracing politics causes unnecessary drama. By supporting President Trump, Dart injected political drama where it wasn’t needed. As a quarterback, he needs to be institutionally neutral.

This argument for neutrality is compelling to me. I do not donate to candidates, and I do not put signs in my yard. That is not because I am uninterested in politics, but because I want both conservative and liberal students to feel welcome in my classroom. I also do not think universities should make political statements for the same reason. Perhaps Michael Jordan was correct when he said that Republicans buy sneakers, too. There is a very good reason for a superstar athlete to remain politically neutral.

On the other hand, the professor in me sees these young men, who are 23 and 22 years old, as people who could be students in my political science classes, whom I encourage to get civically engaged. New York media reported that Dart said he was “given the opportunity to introduce the President of the United States,” and he took it. If a student of mine said he had a chance to introduce the president, I would tell him to take it; soak in the political theater. If another student had feelings about someone introducing the president and wanted to post about it on social media, I would say post it; exercise your free speech.

If they were my students, I would celebrate that they got politically engaged. I would love that they had different opinions about the president, and I would tell them that their relationship with each other should matter more than their politics. In fact, I would tell them that they should focus on why the Giants haven’t won ever, and I would advise them to talk about why we are even bad at being bad. Mostly I would tell them that keeping the republic, in their respective ways of doing so, was the best thing.

These two ideas, neutrality and engagement, cannot be true at the same time. I cannot encourage young people to keep the republic and then say, but not when it’s this candidate, or not on this social medium, or not if you have this job. I cannot say keeping the republic is conditional. If I believe it’s a civic obligation, then Dart and Carter have to be political while they are working to make my fall something to look forward to.

Given that, I have to agree with my friend who suggested we just not take it personally when someone does something political. Dart can support President Trump, and Carter can choose not to. At the same time, they can be teammates who are loyal to each other on a field and in a locker room. We can all remember that half this country disagrees with the other half on any given issue on every day of the year, and we do not need a closed-door meeting about it that gets press coverage.

Let’s just embrace the political diversity that makes this country amazing.

Leah Murray is a Brady Presidential Distinguished Professor of Political Science and the director of the Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service at Weber State University. This commentary is provided through a partnership with Weber State. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.