Support of women's sports: "The right thing to do"

A cross-generational panel set the stage for a lively conversation on Tuesday night at the Pennsylvania State University's All-Sports Museum. Once you managed to find your way through the labyrinth of photos, videos and quotes from the school's past, you arrived to a full room to go back to another moment: The enactment of Title IX.

Martha Adams, former chair of the Penn State women's physical education committee, recalled the pre-Title IX days when women had, so called, "play days" to enhance their skill levels and, through sports, socialize with women from other institutions.

In the 1960s, a few years before Title IX was written into law, the women at Penn State began asking why they didn't have varsity programs. So the efforts began. Adams said that some of the policies that were in place at the time, "today are laughable." She was quick to credit the faculty and the administration for the support they have given to the women's sporting initiatives.

"We have come a long way of doing the right thing," Adams said. 

Representing another generation was Sue Scheetz, who moved up the ladder at Penn State from being an assistant lacrosse coach to head coach to, later Associate Athletic Director and Senior Woman Administrator.

Scheetz talked about her early involvement in sports and the efforts to push for opportunities for women in sports. "You can't get everything done at once, but you can get something done at once," Scheetz said.

She pointed out that one issue about the legislation is the myths. As a former lecturer in the Department of Kinesiology, Scheetz said she was "amazed at the number of students who didn't know what Title IX was or had misconceptions.

The third member of a panel  is a person whose mere presence at Penn State is historical. Coquese Washington became the first female African-American head coach in the school's history.

Washington said that she never would have thought she could have a career in athletics. Now, however, the young women she recruits tell her they want to be professional basketball players, or work in other sport-related fields, such as physical therapy or sports media.

The panelists agreed that the lack of women in leadership positions is still an issue in athletics.

"Young women don't see anybody who looks like them," Washington said.

She also added that women's basketball coaches are placing emphasis on creating a pool of good assistant coaches who could eventually advance in athletics.

Scheetz concurred with these initiatives.

"We need more women who are successful, who will serve as role models for young female athletes," Scheetz said.

But gender equity in sports might face some challenges in the near future. Scheetz is worried that the financial challenges will make non-revenue sports difficult to sustain. That said, the panelists are hoping for continued support of women's sports.

If for no other reason, but because it was, and still is, "the right thing to do."

-- Dunja Antunovic

AAUW holds event for Title IX

Title IX celebrated its "official" signing date birthday over the summer, but the education initiatives about the legislation are far from over.

To set the tone for the new academic year, the State College chapter of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) organized a short, yet informative lecture on Title IX on Monday evening at the Schlow Centre Region Library.

Peg Pennepacker, the athletic director in the State College Area School District, drew upon three decades of her experience in public education to talk about the challenges of Title IX in K-12, and primarily high school education.

Pennapacker highlighted a number of issues she runs into as a Title IX consultant to schools. One is that students, parents and school administrators are often under the impression that Title IX has no implications outside of athletics. "Title IX is not a sports law; it is an education law," Pennepacker said.

She also emphasized that Title IX does not require the cut of men's and boys' sports, which is another common myth about the legislation.

In light of the recent news that a Texas high school is planning to spend $60 million dollars on a football stadium (see earlier blog post), Pennepacker also talked about the rules that apply to high schools in regards to funds from boosters. She clarified that as long as the institution receives federal funding, it is the schools responsibility to ensure there is no disparity in participation opportunities under Title IX.

The presentation was concluded with a legislative update in the State of Pennsylvania: a new section is to be added to the Pennsylvania Public School Code, which would require schools to make the data of their interscholastic athletics opportunities publicly available. You can read the bill and the article here.

A particularly significant of this Article is that, additionally to reporting participation per gender and ethnicity/race, schools will also have to disclose the total value of non-school support (boosters, alumni, etc.) and indicate how these funds are distributed per team. The Article comes into effect in 2013, while the non-school support fund reports will begin in 2015.

For resources about Title IX compliance, see the AAUW guide or our earlier Title IX blog posts. 

-- Dunja Antunovic

London 2012: Title IX Olympics?

The U.S. media started buzzing about the progress of women in the London 2012 Olympics even before the closing ceremonies. By now the media outlets seemed to have come to a consensus that these were truly the "Women's Olympics."

Considering that the U.S. women outnumbered U.S. men both in number of participants and number of gold medals, boxing was added for women, and for the first time all countries had a female athlete on the team, it is only fitting to acknowledge the historical significance of the strides towards gender equity.

For the success of the U.S athletes specifically, scholars and journalists -- Christine Brennan, among others -- have given full credit to Title IX. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational institutions. Since its implementation, women's participation in sports in the U.S. has tremendously increased, opening up opportunities for competition in high school and college alike. (See an annual report by Vivian Acosta and Linda Jean Carpenter here.)

It is important to recognize that the law did not only have a legislative impact, but has also resulted in a cultural shift in regards to women's involvement in sports.

That said, it is also important to recognize that Title IX cannot be credited with the accomplishment of all female athletes. The success of Serena and Venus Williams, for instance, is hardly a direct result of Title IX. And their two gold medals are not the only exceptions to the "Title IX Team" narrative. Wendy Parker adds to this argument by suggesting that the emphasis on winning in the U.S. media coverage "runs counter to what the law is supposed to be about."


Whether Title IX was "supposed" to result in the international success of athletes (male or female) who have organized athletic opportunities throughout their school years, while -- not instead of -- receiving their education, is questionable. Perhaps, this is one of those that can be placed under the unintended (positive or negative?) consequences category.

However, what this celebratory coverage should not be doing is positioning Title IX, once again, within the "battle of the sexes" framework. Title IX is not a battle. Contrary to the myth, it is not a battle between men and women. It is also not a quota system which would require more women than men to compete. And, it most certainly is not a contest of who wins more medals at the Olympics.

Title IX is about equity. It is about protection against discrimination. Title IX is about education, let us not forget that. If it had even a slight impact on how female athletes are viewed in the U.S. society- - and I daresay it did -- which then resulted in a greater number of female athletes participating in and succeeding at the Olympics, then, yes, the American media should celebrate.

But let us also remember: there is no win-loss record in Title IX.

--Dunja Antunovic

Female NFL Ref Receives Online Attention

When Shannon Eastin steps on the field during the Green Bay Packers versus the San Diego Chargers game, she will become the first woman to ref an NFL game. 

A couple of weeks ago, the NFL hinted that the referee lockout could lead to opening opportunities for replacement referees. Eastin was among them. On Monday, The Los Angeles Times  reported that Eastin is officially going to be a part of the ref crew. The online conversation is worth examining. 

A number of news outlets insinuated that this could be an important moment in gender equity. For instance, The Huffington Post called it a “barrier-breaking opportunity,” CBS called it an “interesting opportunity,” SB Nation, a prominent sports blog network, reported that Eastin is “poised to break a long-time barrier.”

In the meantime, Julie Hayes, a Yahoo! Contributor thinks that this “making history” narrative is “a joke” and “just wrong” because the replacement referees, including Eastin, have not been trained properly to be ready for such a high caliber game. To this, a writer on Feministing, a feminist blog, said that regardless of whether Eastin is ready or not, this is “still progress.” 

Cindy Boren from The Washington Post is also worried about the replacement, not because of gender issues, but because of the lack of experience these refs have.

And then there is ESPN. 

In this short video, the ESPN anchor – with a female symbol graphic behind him -- recites Eastin’s accomplishments in judo and telling us that “this is meant as a warning to any of the Packers or Chargers who may feel empowered to question one of her calls on Thursday night; they might wanna think twice about that.” 

Because she is going to take them out?

On a positive note, Kevin Seifert, who reported the news for ESPN.com, wrote the following:

“This is an important moment, and Eastin's assignment will generate relevant discussion on a number of levels. Hopefully there were no barriers for qualified women to reach the top of the football officiating ladder, but if there were, you would hope that Eastin's accomplishment would negate them.”

So it seems that we are witnessing a productive conversation about what it means for the NFL and for U.S. professional sports to have a woman on the field in this capacity.

What we can really learn from, though, are the comments to these articles. ESPN is monitoring (and removing them) every hour, but there are still more than 2000 comments, and counting, to Seifert’s article. Bill Williamson’s article got a few too.

Here are some themes that I detected at first glance, with an example for each:

-          Women belong to the kitchen, not the football field

“This is totally unfair. How can she be expected to referee an NFL game and make sandwiches at the same time?” and “Weird... how is she going to ref from the kitchen?”

-          Women are emotional (and generally unfit to make important decisions)

“Come on. First time a coach yells in her ear she's balling. Why you're at it, get the chicks off the field when the game is on. Hasn't been one half way decent women in the NFL, outside of those lovely Cheerleaders.”

-          Women have no idea about football

“ALRIGHT!!! JUST WHAT WE NEED!!! WOMEN OFFICIATING THE GAMES NOW!!

YOU THOUGHT THEY DIDNT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL BEFORE?

JUST WAIT...” (Capital letters in original text)

-          This political corrected-ness is ridiculous!

“Now we just need a dude to play in the lingerie football league and then I know the world is collapsing before my eyes” and “This is dumb unless she is the most qualified perosn for the job... sets back women if they gave her the gig just bc she is a woman”

-          It’s ok for her to ref, ONLY IF she is good looking (some of the contributors actually posted links to her picture here to determine if she is, indeed, good-looking enough to be “worthy” of their gaze):

“one question is she hot? if so the nfl is moving in the right direction if not i dont care” and “As long as she is attractive I'm cool with it.”

-          Even if she is a decent ref, the players are rude and uncivilized, hence we should protect her from harm

“I think it is a bad idea. You have immature players, who get DUI's, etc. They will have no sympathy for her. She will get called names, and sexist things thrown at her way. Also, if she gets caught in a pileup, it will look really bad. I give Ms. Eastin major props for being able to make it this far, but she may want to stop before something bad happens to her.”

-          Whatever. Just do a good job!

“I dont care if a woman, a man, or a man/pretending to be a woman Refs the game...just get the calls right.”

-          Finally!

“I'm a male and I'm thrilled that there will be a female ref, we are slowly overcoming societies barriers.”

One comment that also caught my eye was this one: “Hell yeah, good to see title IX coming to fruition!” After an overwhelming number of articles, documentaries and statements that were issued in celebration of Title IX’s 40^th anniversary over the summer, I am particularly sad to see that Title IX is still horribly misinterpreted as the law pertains to federally funded educational institutions and has no implications to professional football.

What we learn from this online discourse is that news media outlets seem to be offering a balanced account of NFL’s decisions. We can also find strong opinions on gender issues that Eastin’s situation raised. And, the same old sexist (and homophobic) arguments that we are used to seeing whenever women enter a male-dominated field are also present.

The moment when Eastin steps on the field might be historic and, perhaps, even promising. For the NFL to “allow” women to officiate a football game is the right thing to do as there can hardly be a good reason as to why a female ref would be less competent than a male ref.  

But, clearly, we need to keep engaging in conversations about women’s role in sports. The internet is a great place for that. However, the internet is also a place where – regardless of how hard ESPN tries to monitor comments –  sexism and homophobia survive.  

So, let’s keep talking. Let’s do so with a particular attention to fan cultures and the relationship between gender and sports consumption. 

-- Dunja Antunovic

 

Equal pay in tennis called into question

Tennis is one of the (few) sports where the prize money for men and women is equal at major tournaments – as of 2007, even at Wimbledon.

Yet, five years later, it is precisely during the grass-court Grand Slam that equal pay comes into question.  Gilles Simon, a French player who recently joined the ATP Players Council, was the one who vocalized his concerns. Simon told the Associated Press, that he has “the feeling that men's tennis is actually more interesting than women's tennis.''

That men should be paid more than women is a recurring one. Usually it is supported by the argument that men’s matches are longer: men play a best of five, while women play a best of three sets at Grand Slams. Simon, however, clarified that he was approaching the issue from a business and entertainment aspect, arguing that tickets to men’s matches are more expensive, therefore men deserve more money.

The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), naturally, responded strongly. So did the women on the tour. In an interview, Maria Sharapova pointed out that her matches appear to be more popular than Simon’s. Serena Williams, then, jumped to support Sharapova’s observation, saying that “she is way hotter than he is.”

Obviously Williams took a more light-hearted approach to rebut Simon's comments, but the fact that she felt the need to speak out shows the importance of the issue.

Simon’s views should hardly shock us as they are neither new, nor uncommon. Deborah Cowan, from the Women’s Views on News site, called them “recycled.”

After spending 15 years of playing tennis competitively, I dare call them redundant. And, at this point, somewhat irrelevant.  The International Tennis Federation (ITF) confirmed equal pay at Wimbledon (most certainly not because of Williams’ opinion regarding Simon’s lack of hotness) and there is no indication it is planning to change that. 

As Roger Federer pointed out, the issue is an “endless debate,” but it is, nevertheless, important to mention as it brings some assumptions about sports in our society to the forefront. 

I was glad to hear that women from the tour spoke up and firmly stood for equal pay.

Besides Sharapova and Williams, Samantha Stosur commented as well. She doesn’t think a length of a match necessarily guarantees better quality and said that some men’s matches are “pretty boring.” Others, including Marion Bartoli and Ana Ivanovic, stated that they work just as hard as men do. The female players who spoke up unanimously fought back.

Quite obviously, women’s tennis players will not say that they deserve to be paid less. Most of the men on the tour remain diplomatic or silent about the issue, which is, again, somewhat predictable, even though according to Simon all 128 players in the men’s draw share his sentiments. From those 128, so far we only heard two -- Andy Murray and Andy Roddick -- who backed Simon.

Former Wimbledon champion, Goran Ivanisevic also spoke up supporting Simon. The consistent theme in the responses, including in this article from Yahoo! Sports, is that this is not about gender, it's about business and entertainment.

And then, there is John McEnroe.

The tennis legend, who brought tears to his former mixed-doubles partner's eyes, said "There should be no argument when they are at the same event at the same time, that there should be equal pay." McEnroe also credited Billie Jean King for her efforts towards equity in sports. 

The equal pay debate can, indeed, be endless. As a Bleacher Report blogger says, perhaps, people might just need to "get over" the current state of things that prize money is equal for men and women.

But it seems that we are not quite over it yet. Simon brought it up shortly after he was appointed to the players' council. Though few of his colleagues have come out to support him, clearly the sentiment that women's tennis is less valuable than men's tennis is out there, even if unspoken.

Simon also cannot be dismissed on the count that he is "only" the 13th ranked player in the world and nobody really cares about him. He is, now, in a position of relative power where his job is to represent the players. Hence, his comments and, consequently the responses, need to be discussed.

And we most certainly cannot buy into the argument that this conversation is merely about "business." It is about the very values that drive the organization of sports in our society. It is as much about labor as it is about gendered bodies and relations – many of which sports advocates and athletes alike are consistently challenging.

Equal pay in tennis might not be under threat. But Simon’s statements remind us that, ideologically, we might be far from gender equity. And this means that we need to put a little more effort into talking about it.

-- Dunja Antunovic

Title IX at 40: A Day with a Legendary Line-up

The Title IX at 40 Conference at the University of Michigan continued with a vibrant conversation between scholars, Olympic athletes, administrators and attorneys.

Amy Berman from the Office for Civil Rights launched today’s conversation with her insights into Title IX related issues. She began by emphasizing that Title IX, though usually associated with sports, has had tremendous impact on other areas in education such as offering protection against harassment, bullying and sexual violence.

These issues and incidents, however, often remain unreported. Berman pointed out that students need to be provided information on who to contact when such instances occur so that they get reported.

“These things cannot get lost,” Berman said.

The panels throughout the day addressed various issues ranging from Title IX’s relationship to health benefits and injuries to employment and workplace discrimination. A number of Gold Medalist Olympic Athletes were participating in the panels including figure skater Sarah Hughes and softball player Jennie Finch.

Jim Delaney, Big Ten Commissioner, spoke about the Big Ten Conference’s Gender Equity Action Plan and the progress the Big Ten has made in regards to opportunities and funding for intercollegiate athletics, particularly highlighting the points where the Conference demonstrated equitable treatment of men and women.

The day was closed by the legendary Dr. Bernice B. Sandler, frequently referred to as the “godmother of Title IX,” who shared the stories about the efforts it took to bring Title IX into legislation. Her journey began when she was denied a job because she was “too strong for a woman.”

Dr. Sandler’s stories of discrimination were absurd to the point that the audience members responded with a chuckle; yet the issues are still quite prevalent and Dr. Sandler called for the younger generations to continue gathering, educating, and organizing around Title IX and gender equity.

The conference concludes tomorrow with a number of panels, two of which feature Penn State scholars. John Cheslock from the Center for the Study of Higher Education will be speaking about issues of sustainability in intercollegiate athletics.

The College of Communications will be represented by Marie Hardin, Associate Director for Research at the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism, who will serve on the Journalists, Media and Title IX panel. Joining her will be Nicole LaVoi from the University of Minnesota and Joanne C. Gerstner, a journalist from espnW.com and The New York Times.

The program begins on Friday at 8:30am (ET). Tune in on twitter @CurleyCenter #TitleIXConference!

--Dunja Antunovic

Unanswered questions

Nearly 40 years after Title IX, we are so accustomed to stories about girls playing on boys’ teams or participating in boys’ leagues that usually these cases go by unnoticed. Once in a while, however, these stories appear on the web because a team or an athlete will refuse to “compete against a girl.”

Earlier this year, a 14-year-old boy forfeited a wrestling match because he found it inappropriate to wrestle against a girl in a tournament. Issues about a girls’ place in sports arise most frequently in the context of the “traditionally masculine” sports, as these are regarded as a dangerous place for girls .

Most recently, a coach of a junior varsity football team threatened to forfeit a game because the opposing team had a girl on the roster. Mina Johnson, who is the first girl to play for her school, the Southampton Academy, decided to sit out so her team can play.

Stories such as this one raise important questions about cultural values and attitudes toward girls and women in sports. These conversations have been going on for decades, fueled by instances such as this football controversy.

The curious dimension of these conversations is the attempt to be progressive by taking a “let her play” approach, yet systemic discrimination is often uncontested. Phrases such as “she was just one of the guys” normalize the male as the athlete and suggest that a girl needs to become a “guy” in order to gain athletic credibility. And this is supposed to be a compliment.

My concern, besides the language, is interpretation of what occurred after Johnson decided not to play.

The news articles that popped up when I Googled Mina Johnson had two themes in common: wearing pink appeared to be a symbol of activism and Southampton Academy's 60-0 win showed that the "good" will ultimately conquer the "evil."

Articles, such as the one found on the Bleacher Report site, point out that Johnson’s team wore pink armbands in support of breast cancer awareness month, and is certainly not the only one on the web which claims that pink also signified support for Johnson. It is unclear if the players actually interpreted it as such, but that hardly matters. The writers are putting two completely unrelated causes together additionally to failing to address a larger issue by reducing it to a mere color.

The articles in my web search also placed heavy emphasis on the score of the game that Johnson sat out. Johnson’s team won 60-0, which apparently proved the point that the other team was wrong to threaten to forfeit. I wonder what would have happened if Johnson's team had lost. What would have the the score "proven" then? Since Southampton Academy "demolished" the other team, as the San Francisco Chronicle blog post put it, the outcome of the game served as an indicator of justice.

So next time there is a case of discrimination, we should just wear pink and let out our frustrations out by beating “those people?”

There are so many questions to ask, yet an armband and domination appear to be satisfying our need for an answer while Johnson sits on the sidelines.

Is that really the best we can do?

-- Dunja Antunovic