I can see how this can be perceived both ways. As much as many fans don't want to acknowledge this, these students are really just supersized kids. They are in college, an epicenter for learning and growth, and it's important that they begin to understand the greater implications of life and not just the game of football. If a PhD helps to facilitate that growth, that's okay. If, on the other hand, he's not facilitating growth but actually orchestrating protests and imposing his own moral standards in an attempt to get them to do his bidding, that's not okay.
So, for ex, if players come to him to gain a better understanding of the social protests occuring and he answers questions and tries to explain what's going on, that's okay. If through the process of understanding the social implications of the protests, the players say they want to take a stand, gain an understanding of the pros and cons, and still choose to protest, then that's okay as well.
If, for ex, the same scenario occurs, and Ivey starts to state his own personal feelings on the matter, then he goes from being a teacher to being an activist which isn't fair to the kids imo. He isn't allowing for personal growth and is, for all intents and purposes, brainwashing the kids who then will do his bidding. That would start a very dangerous cycle where he might become the most powerful coach on the team because of his access.
It will be extremely important for Richt to understand whether Ivey is the former or the latter. He's the one coach who could lead a mutiny through social activism. On the other hand, he could be the best coach on the staff outside of Richt.