Carl Walker-Hoover was an 11 year old student who played basketball and football. He was a Boy Scout. He went to school in Springfield, MA, about 30 minutes from where I sit right now. He is the latest victim of “bullicide." He was taunted and threatened daily in school by classmates who called him gay and made fun of his clothes. Last week Carl hung himself in his bedroom with an electric cord while his mother cooked dinner downstairs. His mother knew about the bullying and had complained to school authorities to no avail. Carl hung himself, but his death was the result of peer cruelty and school indifference or ineffectiveness in response –bullicide. According to Eliza Byard, Executive Director of GLSEN, Carl’s suicide is the fourth among middle school students linked to bullying in the last year.
Whether Carl was gay or not doesn’t matter. Being called gay and threatened because other students think you are gay is one of the most common forms of bullying among middle and high school students and clearly one of the most deadly.
Eric Mohat, a 17 year old student in Ohio killed himself after being bullied and called “fag,” “homo,” “queer. He was habitually pushed and shoved in school, sometimes in view of school staff who did nothing to stop it, according to his parents. They are suing the school in federal court, not for money, but to require the school to address bullying. They claim that bullying was also a significant factor in the suicides of three of Eric’s classmates in 2007. Four student suicides linked to bullying at the same school in one year? Where are the adults in this school? They need to be sued to get them to act in the face of these student deaths?
Bullying is so much more sophisticated now. Cyber-bullying via the internet, social networking sites and cell phones make it virtually impossible to escape the hatred and cruelty. When students targeted by bullying see death as the only way to escape their tormentors, we must acknowledge that schools are not protecting students. They are not safe places to be if you are unlucky enough to be targeted by anti-gay bullying. Some students, as was the case in some of the school shootings over the years, bring guns to school to protect themselves in the absence of protection by the adults in schools. Other students, as in the case of Larry King’s killer last year, bring guns to kill gay kids. How can we avoid the realization that schools in which bullying and homophobia are commonplace have become terrorist sites every bit as dangerous as a war zone for anyone who is different or is perceived as different or vulnerable.
Yet community groups, often driven by religious conviction and school administrations, often driven by cowardice in the face of community protest, see gay students, or those assumed to be gay, and their friends as the problem. How many communities have protested anti-bullying curriculum in schools because it addresses anti-gay bullying? How many schools have denied students their right to form a Gay-Straight Alliance based on the lies and distortions of anti-gay community groups? Even when research tells us that GSAs in schools can help change the school climate for the better and provide support for students who are targeted by bullying, some school administrators try to forbid them. Some school boards have disbanded all student clubs in order to prevent students from starting a Gay-Straight Alliance as is their right according to the Federal Equal Access Act.
As we approach the annual GLSEN-sponsored Day of Silence on April 17 in which students in schools volunteer to take a vow of silence for the day in protest of anti-gay harassment and discrimination, Christian-based groups are responding with their own Day of “Truth” where they spread their hateful lies about LGBT people. Some of these groups encourage parents to keep their children at home to register their outrage that the school allows students to participate in a Day of Silence. Where is the outrage at the death of students tormented by anti-gay bullying? Are their children participating in the bullying based on their parents’ example?
If we read or watch news accounts of homophobic bullicide in schools or hear about school inaction or indifference to anti-gay harassment by students or teachers, if we sit back and do nothing when schools in our communities refuse to enact programs to address bullying or refuse to allow students to form a GSA or participate in a Day of Silence or No Name-Calling Week, then we enable cruelty, fear, hatred and ignorance in schools. By our silence and inaction, we contribute to the violence, terror and suffering that was the day to day experience of Eric Mohat, Carl Walker-Hoover, Larry King and still is for far too many other young people who are targeted by anti-gay bullying. Whatever our views on being gay, how can we live with that and call ourselves a civilized society?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Training Rules: A Powerful Examination of the “No Lesbian” Era of Penn State Women’s Basketball
Saturday night I attended the premiere of Training Rules, the Dee Mosbacher and Fawn Yacker documentary about the Rene Portland “no lesbian” era of Penn State women’s basketball. The film premiered at the Philadelphia Film Festival to a full house who gave Dee and Fawn an enthusiastic standing ovation before the film began and repeated this honor again after the 61 minute film ended.
All of the principals who appeared in the documentary were present for the premiere except one of the courageous athletes targeted by Portland’s 25 year assault on all things she perceived as lesbian. The former Penn State basketball players who spoke out in the film included Cindy Davies, Lisa Faloon, Chris and Corinne Gulas, Courtney Wicks and Jennifer Harris. Jennifer Harris, the athlete who filed the 2005 lawsuit against Penn State and Portland and Jen’s mother and father were featured in the film as was Portland’s assistant coach in the early 80’s, Liz McGovern. Sue Rankin, the former Penn State softball coach who has tirelessly fought homophobia at Penn State for over 30 years, was included in the documentary. Adding commentary and context were Helen Carroll, NCLR Sports Project Director and former NCLR attorney, Karen Doering, who was one of the attorneys who represented Jennifer Harris. It was my honor to also be included in the documentary as a “talking head.”
Hugs and introductions were exchanged as we all waited in the VIP line to enter the theatre. The sense of anticipation and pride I think we all felt about the roles we had each played in the making of this fine documentary was palpable. I felt like we were a band of sisters who shared a common purpose in seeing justice done by getting this shameful story of cruelty, abuse of power, irrational fixation on lesbians and blatant discrimination out in public so that no athlete ever again has to suffer the way the courageous women featured in the film did.
The documentary is extremely well done. Dee and Fawn have created a riveting story line weaving interviews, action shots and information into a compelling narrative that shocked the few audience members who did not know about this regrettable era in Penn State Athletics. The film is an amazing educational tool that will spark discussion and self-reflection for everyone connected to women’s athletics whether they are athletes, coaches, administrators, parents or fans.
The core of the documentary is the experience of the former basketball players who speak out. Jen Harris bravely stepped forward and initiated the final fall of Rene Portland, who resigned shortly after the lawsuit was settled in 2007. Muzzled by the terms of confidentiality imposed by the lawsuit’s settlement, Jen Harris was unable to speak to us at the premiere, but her lead role in the documentary and in the lawsuit was acknowledged with another standing ovation from the audience as she stood shyly before us after the film ended. Jen and her parents, with the able and committed resources of the NCLR took on Penn State and Portland in a bitter legal battle that lasted over two years. Harris’s claims alone might have been dismissed as the complaints of the disgruntled troublemaker that Portland claimed she was, but the willingness of the other five former PSU basketball players and one former assistant coach to step forward in support of Harris’s claims make it impossible to ignore the truth that comes through in their collective accounts of each one being targeted by Portland’s lesbian purges. That their experiences spanned the entirety of Portland’s 25 year career at Penn State, from the Gulas twins in 1980 to Jen Harris in 2005 is a stunning monument to institutional indifference or complicity. I don’t know which is worse. Maybe it was a little of both.
Hearing these women recount what Portland said and did to them is wrenching. Portland was a bully and carelessly destroyed dreams and tried to crush spirits with intimidation and threats. And she did it over and over anytime her twisted “gaydar” twanged. I was left wondering how many other former Penn State basketball players were similarly bullied, but did not have the courage to speak up. I wondered how many others there are who have not recovered from their Penn State experience and cannot tell their stories.
My final impression is, after seeing the documentary and then talking with each of the former players after the film, that far from crushing their spirits, these women are amazingly strong and resilient. These women are survivors who, despite the fear and intimidation they endured, refused to allow Portland to steal their spirits or make them feel shame or doubt about who they choose to love. They each stepped forward when asked, with the common purpose of shining a light on perhaps their darkest and lowest moments so that younger generations of athletes will not have to endure what they did. All of these women are sheroes and I thank Dee and Fawn for giving them the opportunity to close a difficult chapter in each of their lives.
Portland was a successful coach for many years, by the standard of wins and losses. Her teams were in the top 20 and made two trips to the Final Four. She never won the big games though. They always fell just short. The former players in the documentary talked about the fear and stress that all women on the team learned to live with as they protected themselves as best they could from their coach’s judgmental and prying eye. After the film, they spoke about the numbers of players they knew who left the team over the years, unwilling or unable to tolerate Portland’s rampages. Is it any wonder then that Penn State could never win the big ones? Basketball is a game of trust and teamwork. How could they, playing under clouds of suspicion and fear, bring their best basketball to the stressful final three minutes of a close game?
The documentary also calls attention to the entire women’s collegiate basketball coaches’ community. They knew about Portland’s “training rules” yet their silence about Portland’s rule was complete. To the contrary she was honored twice by the WBCA as Coach of the Year. How are we to understand this reaction? We can only hope that the bravery of Jen Harris and the other former players featured in Training Rules encourages coaches to reflect on the cost of their silence to young women’s lives and moves them to choose a different response in the future to prevent the egregious abuse of power tolerated at Penn State from ever happening again.
The good news is that in the wake of Portland’s resignation, change is afoot at Penn State. The athletic department has taken several steps to educate staff and student-athletes about the necessity to respect the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes and coaches. The new women’s coach, Coquese Washington, shows an active interest in making sure that everyone on her teams are treated with respect and is quietly rebuilding a team left in shambles after the public controversy at the end of Portland era.
Dee tells me that Training Rules will be in distribution in October. In the meantime it will be screened at film festivals around the country. Go to the Training Rules web site for information about where you can to see it. If you care about women’s sports, if you care about social justice in women’s sports, you need to see Training Rules. If you don’t understand why people like me keep harping about LGBT issues in sport, if you think the days of discrimination against lesbians in sport are past, you need to see Training Rules.
In fact, I have a new training rule I’d like to propose for all sports: No bullies, no bigots, and no bystanders. It has a nice ring, don’t you think?
All of the principals who appeared in the documentary were present for the premiere except one of the courageous athletes targeted by Portland’s 25 year assault on all things she perceived as lesbian. The former Penn State basketball players who spoke out in the film included Cindy Davies, Lisa Faloon, Chris and Corinne Gulas, Courtney Wicks and Jennifer Harris. Jennifer Harris, the athlete who filed the 2005 lawsuit against Penn State and Portland and Jen’s mother and father were featured in the film as was Portland’s assistant coach in the early 80’s, Liz McGovern. Sue Rankin, the former Penn State softball coach who has tirelessly fought homophobia at Penn State for over 30 years, was included in the documentary. Adding commentary and context were Helen Carroll, NCLR Sports Project Director and former NCLR attorney, Karen Doering, who was one of the attorneys who represented Jennifer Harris. It was my honor to also be included in the documentary as a “talking head.”
Hugs and introductions were exchanged as we all waited in the VIP line to enter the theatre. The sense of anticipation and pride I think we all felt about the roles we had each played in the making of this fine documentary was palpable. I felt like we were a band of sisters who shared a common purpose in seeing justice done by getting this shameful story of cruelty, abuse of power, irrational fixation on lesbians and blatant discrimination out in public so that no athlete ever again has to suffer the way the courageous women featured in the film did.
The documentary is extremely well done. Dee and Fawn have created a riveting story line weaving interviews, action shots and information into a compelling narrative that shocked the few audience members who did not know about this regrettable era in Penn State Athletics. The film is an amazing educational tool that will spark discussion and self-reflection for everyone connected to women’s athletics whether they are athletes, coaches, administrators, parents or fans.
The core of the documentary is the experience of the former basketball players who speak out. Jen Harris bravely stepped forward and initiated the final fall of Rene Portland, who resigned shortly after the lawsuit was settled in 2007. Muzzled by the terms of confidentiality imposed by the lawsuit’s settlement, Jen Harris was unable to speak to us at the premiere, but her lead role in the documentary and in the lawsuit was acknowledged with another standing ovation from the audience as she stood shyly before us after the film ended. Jen and her parents, with the able and committed resources of the NCLR took on Penn State and Portland in a bitter legal battle that lasted over two years. Harris’s claims alone might have been dismissed as the complaints of the disgruntled troublemaker that Portland claimed she was, but the willingness of the other five former PSU basketball players and one former assistant coach to step forward in support of Harris’s claims make it impossible to ignore the truth that comes through in their collective accounts of each one being targeted by Portland’s lesbian purges. That their experiences spanned the entirety of Portland’s 25 year career at Penn State, from the Gulas twins in 1980 to Jen Harris in 2005 is a stunning monument to institutional indifference or complicity. I don’t know which is worse. Maybe it was a little of both.
Hearing these women recount what Portland said and did to them is wrenching. Portland was a bully and carelessly destroyed dreams and tried to crush spirits with intimidation and threats. And she did it over and over anytime her twisted “gaydar” twanged. I was left wondering how many other former Penn State basketball players were similarly bullied, but did not have the courage to speak up. I wondered how many others there are who have not recovered from their Penn State experience and cannot tell their stories.
My final impression is, after seeing the documentary and then talking with each of the former players after the film, that far from crushing their spirits, these women are amazingly strong and resilient. These women are survivors who, despite the fear and intimidation they endured, refused to allow Portland to steal their spirits or make them feel shame or doubt about who they choose to love. They each stepped forward when asked, with the common purpose of shining a light on perhaps their darkest and lowest moments so that younger generations of athletes will not have to endure what they did. All of these women are sheroes and I thank Dee and Fawn for giving them the opportunity to close a difficult chapter in each of their lives.
Portland was a successful coach for many years, by the standard of wins and losses. Her teams were in the top 20 and made two trips to the Final Four. She never won the big games though. They always fell just short. The former players in the documentary talked about the fear and stress that all women on the team learned to live with as they protected themselves as best they could from their coach’s judgmental and prying eye. After the film, they spoke about the numbers of players they knew who left the team over the years, unwilling or unable to tolerate Portland’s rampages. Is it any wonder then that Penn State could never win the big ones? Basketball is a game of trust and teamwork. How could they, playing under clouds of suspicion and fear, bring their best basketball to the stressful final three minutes of a close game?
The documentary also calls attention to the entire women’s collegiate basketball coaches’ community. They knew about Portland’s “training rules” yet their silence about Portland’s rule was complete. To the contrary she was honored twice by the WBCA as Coach of the Year. How are we to understand this reaction? We can only hope that the bravery of Jen Harris and the other former players featured in Training Rules encourages coaches to reflect on the cost of their silence to young women’s lives and moves them to choose a different response in the future to prevent the egregious abuse of power tolerated at Penn State from ever happening again.
The good news is that in the wake of Portland’s resignation, change is afoot at Penn State. The athletic department has taken several steps to educate staff and student-athletes about the necessity to respect the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual athletes and coaches. The new women’s coach, Coquese Washington, shows an active interest in making sure that everyone on her teams are treated with respect and is quietly rebuilding a team left in shambles after the public controversy at the end of Portland era.
Dee tells me that Training Rules will be in distribution in October. In the meantime it will be screened at film festivals around the country. Go to the Training Rules web site for information about where you can to see it. If you care about women’s sports, if you care about social justice in women’s sports, you need to see Training Rules. If you don’t understand why people like me keep harping about LGBT issues in sport, if you think the days of discrimination against lesbians in sport are past, you need to see Training Rules.
In fact, I have a new training rule I’d like to propose for all sports: No bullies, no bigots, and no bystanders. It has a nice ring, don’t you think?
Friday, April 3, 2009
On The Road to the Final Four
I will on the road for the next five days. First stop - Philadelphia - to attend the premiere of "Training Rules," Dee Mosbacher's documentary on the Rene Portland "no lesbian" era in Penn State women's basketball, which thankfully ended in 2007 when Portland resigned. The film will be part of the Philadelphia Film Festival.
I am looking forward to seeing the film and will post my reaction to it here. I did see a rough cut about a year ago and what struck me most then was hearing several of women Portland targeted over a 20 plus year period talk about their experiences. It is a powerful testimony to the damage and pain Portland caused and to the strength and resilience of these women who chose to tell their stories publicly for the first time in the documentary.
Then I am on to St Louis for the Final Four and the WBCA convention. I am part of a convention session entitled "Seeking Common Ground: Lesbians and Christians in Women's Sports- Take 2." Last year at the convention I helped plan and participate in a similar session with some women from the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Athletes in Action, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
We are doing the session again, but instead of a panel, this year we are focusing on small group discussions among the folks who attend the session. Last year we had a wonderful dialogue and this year we hope to extend it to include more voices. We hope to leave the session with a brainstormed list of ways to make sure that all women on a team - Christian and non-Christian, lesbian, bi or straight - feel respected and included. I'll post something after the session which is Tuesday, right before the final game.
I'm hoping for a Stanford vs. Oklahoma final game, by the way. I know I am probably fighting an uphill battle rooting for Stanford to beat UConn, but they did it last year. Why not a repeat?
Take care and I'll talk to you from the road.
I am looking forward to seeing the film and will post my reaction to it here. I did see a rough cut about a year ago and what struck me most then was hearing several of women Portland targeted over a 20 plus year period talk about their experiences. It is a powerful testimony to the damage and pain Portland caused and to the strength and resilience of these women who chose to tell their stories publicly for the first time in the documentary.
Then I am on to St Louis for the Final Four and the WBCA convention. I am part of a convention session entitled "Seeking Common Ground: Lesbians and Christians in Women's Sports- Take 2." Last year at the convention I helped plan and participate in a similar session with some women from the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Athletes in Action, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
We are doing the session again, but instead of a panel, this year we are focusing on small group discussions among the folks who attend the session. Last year we had a wonderful dialogue and this year we hope to extend it to include more voices. We hope to leave the session with a brainstormed list of ways to make sure that all women on a team - Christian and non-Christian, lesbian, bi or straight - feel respected and included. I'll post something after the session which is Tuesday, right before the final game.
I'm hoping for a Stanford vs. Oklahoma final game, by the way. I know I am probably fighting an uphill battle rooting for Stanford to beat UConn, but they did it last year. Why not a repeat?
Take care and I'll talk to you from the road.
Monday, March 30, 2009
What Would You Do?
ABC has a new TV show called, What Would You Do? I’ve never seen the show, but I read about it on Bilerico.com and then went to YouTube and watched a few of the different segments of the show posted there. Apparently, the show focuses on setting up a situation in a public place to see how people react. It involves hidden cameras and actors setting the scene and then recording people’s responses and interviewing them afterwards. A little creepy, but actually several of the segments I watched pose interesting questions exploring how people respond to “controversial” behavior, like two men kissing in the park or illegal behavior like three teenagers vandalizing a car, or when they have to make a choice about ignoring or intervening when they witness homophobic, racist, or sexist behavior. Here’s the set up for the segment highlighted on Bilerico. A white gay male couple (who are actors and partners in real life) engage in a public display of affection in a sports bar in New Jersey. A “homophobic” provocateur who is in cahoots with the program stirs the pot by making negative comments to other bar patrons about the gay men and then we watch how people respond to the situation.
I put aside my initial fear that the gay couple might be opening themselves to a violent response and was pleasantly surprised by the reactions of most of the people. The “homophobic” provocateur actually ticked most people off, not the gay couple. People stood up for the right of the gay couple to be physically affectionate with each other in the same way that a heterosexual couple (also in cahoots with the TV show) at the other end of the bar were.
The scene was repeated later in the evening with more people in the bar and the gay couple being more demonstrative in their affections. They also upped the ante by having the planted straight couple make negative comments about the gay men. One white male bar patron seemed particularly upset by the gay men, calling them disgusting. He was aggressively challenged by a woman at the bar who became quite upset by his homophobic comments. The TV crew interviewed her and the guy who made the anti-gay comments after she confronted him. She said that she had gay friends and it upset her to see the two gay men in the bar treated as they were. The guy who comfortably and vocally expressed his disgust at the sight of two gay men being affectionate in “his” bar when he did not know the camera was rolling, turned into a “live and let live” “I don’t care what other people do” kind of guy when he knew he was going to be on TV. It seems the light of public scrutiny induced a conversion experience for him – from blatant homophobia to professed tolerance.
Here’s the video segment. Check it out and then let’s talk about it.
So what is the take away from this little experiment?
• Most homophobes are cowards who back down or are silenced when confronted, find out they are in the minority, or that they are on TV.
• More heterosexuals (at least in this bar in NJ) are more offended by vocal homophobes than gay men kissing
• Having gay friends, co-workers or family members makes it more likely that people will be offended by homophobic behavior (actually research does tell us that having gay people in your life does make you more accepting of gay people)
• I wonder what difference having a lesbian couple or a gay couple of color kissing would have made? Or if the gay couple had been a little more stereotypical in their appearance or mannerisms?
I think about this TV show segment in relationship to recent news articles about the increase in homophobic chants and jeers by large groups of fans at men’s sports directed at opposing players. I have never attended a sporting event where this was happening so I have not personally witnessed this. I don’t know if other fans who are offended by the homophobia confront the ones yelling or holding up crude posters.
Maybe it feels less personal at a sports event because no one really thinks the targeted players are actually gay. It’s just a way to put them down, get them to lose their concentration, throw their game off. It is all at the expense of gay people though. It assumes it will be upsetting and insulting to be called gay.
The problem, of course, is that it isn’t only the targeted players who feel the impact of homophobic fans’ abuse. It contaminates the entire sporting climate for everyone attending the game. It scares people who are lesbian or gay. I imagine it makes lots of other people uncomfortable. I worry about the message it sends to young fans. At sporting events where alcohol is served, the potential for violence is increased. It puts heterosexual allies in the position that the people in the bar were in –You have to decide whether or not to speak up. You have to decide whether to be a silent bystander, which is often read as support or approval, or make your disapproval known, like the heterosexual people in the bar did.
Going back to the title of the TV show – What would you do? It’s a great question to ask ourselves. If your teammate is making anti-gay or racist comments in the locker room, if one of your opponents on another team is taunting you or a teammate with gay or sexist slurs, if fans sitting near you at a game are holding up anti-gay posters or calling someone on the opposing team “dykes” or “fags,” what would you do? And remember, chances are, if you do speak up, others will follow your lead and back you up. That’s a big take away from that little bar in New Jersey.
I put aside my initial fear that the gay couple might be opening themselves to a violent response and was pleasantly surprised by the reactions of most of the people. The “homophobic” provocateur actually ticked most people off, not the gay couple. People stood up for the right of the gay couple to be physically affectionate with each other in the same way that a heterosexual couple (also in cahoots with the TV show) at the other end of the bar were.
The scene was repeated later in the evening with more people in the bar and the gay couple being more demonstrative in their affections. They also upped the ante by having the planted straight couple make negative comments about the gay men. One white male bar patron seemed particularly upset by the gay men, calling them disgusting. He was aggressively challenged by a woman at the bar who became quite upset by his homophobic comments. The TV crew interviewed her and the guy who made the anti-gay comments after she confronted him. She said that she had gay friends and it upset her to see the two gay men in the bar treated as they were. The guy who comfortably and vocally expressed his disgust at the sight of two gay men being affectionate in “his” bar when he did not know the camera was rolling, turned into a “live and let live” “I don’t care what other people do” kind of guy when he knew he was going to be on TV. It seems the light of public scrutiny induced a conversion experience for him – from blatant homophobia to professed tolerance.
Here’s the video segment. Check it out and then let’s talk about it.
So what is the take away from this little experiment?
• Most homophobes are cowards who back down or are silenced when confronted, find out they are in the minority, or that they are on TV.
• More heterosexuals (at least in this bar in NJ) are more offended by vocal homophobes than gay men kissing
• Having gay friends, co-workers or family members makes it more likely that people will be offended by homophobic behavior (actually research does tell us that having gay people in your life does make you more accepting of gay people)
• I wonder what difference having a lesbian couple or a gay couple of color kissing would have made? Or if the gay couple had been a little more stereotypical in their appearance or mannerisms?
I think about this TV show segment in relationship to recent news articles about the increase in homophobic chants and jeers by large groups of fans at men’s sports directed at opposing players. I have never attended a sporting event where this was happening so I have not personally witnessed this. I don’t know if other fans who are offended by the homophobia confront the ones yelling or holding up crude posters.
Maybe it feels less personal at a sports event because no one really thinks the targeted players are actually gay. It’s just a way to put them down, get them to lose their concentration, throw their game off. It is all at the expense of gay people though. It assumes it will be upsetting and insulting to be called gay.
The problem, of course, is that it isn’t only the targeted players who feel the impact of homophobic fans’ abuse. It contaminates the entire sporting climate for everyone attending the game. It scares people who are lesbian or gay. I imagine it makes lots of other people uncomfortable. I worry about the message it sends to young fans. At sporting events where alcohol is served, the potential for violence is increased. It puts heterosexual allies in the position that the people in the bar were in –You have to decide whether or not to speak up. You have to decide whether to be a silent bystander, which is often read as support or approval, or make your disapproval known, like the heterosexual people in the bar did.
Going back to the title of the TV show – What would you do? It’s a great question to ask ourselves. If your teammate is making anti-gay or racist comments in the locker room, if one of your opponents on another team is taunting you or a teammate with gay or sexist slurs, if fans sitting near you at a game are holding up anti-gay posters or calling someone on the opposing team “dykes” or “fags,” what would you do? And remember, chances are, if you do speak up, others will follow your lead and back you up. That’s a big take away from that little bar in New Jersey.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Ground-Breaking Scholarly Conference on Sex and Sexuality in Sport
Last Wednesday through Friday, I attended a conference on Sport and Sexuality at Ithaca College in NY. The conference was organized by Dr. Ellen Staurowsky, a professor in Sport Management and Media at Ithaca. Over the course of two days and an evening, attendees were treated to a wonderful menu of research presentations, panels, Jeff Sheng’s Fearless photo exhibit, and a captivating two hour talk by John Amaechi. This conference was ground-breaking. As far as I know, it was the first scholarly conference to focus on sport and sexuality.
Established sport scholars like Sue Rankin from Penn State, Diane Gill from UNC-Greensboro, Vikki Krane from Bowling Green University and Becky Beal from Cal State-East Bay and Mo Smith from Cal State, Sacramento were joined by a younger generation of up and coming sport scholars like Erin Buzuvis, JD from Western New England College, Amy Sandler from UNLV, Kerrie Kauer from Cal State Long Beach, and Tre Wentling and Kristenne Robison from Syracuse. I hesitate to mention any names because all the presentations I attended were high quality and it is impossible to list everyone here. It was encouraging that so many young scholars are interested in and receiving support for research on LGBT issues in sport.
Those of us who focus on the practical side of these issues also had a chance to talk about our work with coaches and athletes. Some of these presentations were made by me, Helen Carroll from the NCLR Sports Project, Karin Lofstrom from the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women’s Sports, Ted Rybka from the GLAD Sports Desk, and Allison Subasic, LGBT Center director from Penn State. Good work is happening in the world of athletics to make sports a safer and more respectful place for all athletes and coaches, including LGBT people. I left the conference energized and excited about the connections I made and ready to get back to work.
Next time around (and I hope there will be a second conference on sport and sexuality), I hope we can focus more on intersections among gender, sex and sexuality with race, disability and religion. That would provide an even richer discussion of these important social justice issues in sport.
Kudos to Ithaca College, Ellen Staurowsky and all the folks to helped for planning and conducting a wonderful event.
Established sport scholars like Sue Rankin from Penn State, Diane Gill from UNC-Greensboro, Vikki Krane from Bowling Green University and Becky Beal from Cal State-East Bay and Mo Smith from Cal State, Sacramento were joined by a younger generation of up and coming sport scholars like Erin Buzuvis, JD from Western New England College, Amy Sandler from UNLV, Kerrie Kauer from Cal State Long Beach, and Tre Wentling and Kristenne Robison from Syracuse. I hesitate to mention any names because all the presentations I attended were high quality and it is impossible to list everyone here. It was encouraging that so many young scholars are interested in and receiving support for research on LGBT issues in sport.
Those of us who focus on the practical side of these issues also had a chance to talk about our work with coaches and athletes. Some of these presentations were made by me, Helen Carroll from the NCLR Sports Project, Karin Lofstrom from the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women’s Sports, Ted Rybka from the GLAD Sports Desk, and Allison Subasic, LGBT Center director from Penn State. Good work is happening in the world of athletics to make sports a safer and more respectful place for all athletes and coaches, including LGBT people. I left the conference energized and excited about the connections I made and ready to get back to work.
Next time around (and I hope there will be a second conference on sport and sexuality), I hope we can focus more on intersections among gender, sex and sexuality with race, disability and religion. That would provide an even richer discussion of these important social justice issues in sport.
Kudos to Ithaca College, Ellen Staurowsky and all the folks to helped for planning and conducting a wonderful event.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bayard Rustin: Black Gay Activist AND Athlete
Here is a fascinating history lesson from Patricia Nell Warren about Bayard Rustin. I knew he was one of Martin Luther King’s top lieutenants in the early Black Civil Rights Movement and that he organized the March on Washington in 1963 and that he was a closeted gay man. I also knew that MLK asked him to step down to avoid controversy because of his homosexuality. I did not know that Rustin was also an athlete. Leave it to the ever fabulous Patricia Nell Warren to educate us all.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sport in Society Announces “Athlete Bill of Rights”
The Center for Sport and Society lives at Northeastern University in Boston. Their mission as described on the web site is:
“Through innovative programming and extensive outreach that impacts thousands both locally and worldwide, Sport in Society uses the power and appeal of sport to foster diversity, prevent men’s violence against women, eradicate youth violence, and improve the health of disenfranchised urban youth, all of which are critical to the health and safety of our citizens.”
CSS is a long time leader in addressing multiple social justice issues in sport, including racism, sexism, homophobia/heterosexism, and ableism. I attended and gave a keynote speech at their Power of Sport Summit last summer. Human rights and athlete activism in sport were themes that ran through the entire conference.
Eli Wolff, the manager of research and advocacy at the center, sent me their newly developed Athlete Bill of Rights. The Sport in Society Athlete Bill of Rights focuses on the rights of athletes within athletics. One of the main goals of the Bill of Rights is to “empower athletes to advocate for their own rights” through open discussion and debate and through this process, encourage athlete activism.
Athletes are sometimes thought of as products owned by professional franchises or college athletic departments. Some coaches assume as their prerogative the power to control an athlete’s personal and political expression including how they spend their time out of the athletic context, and with whom they socialize. Potential distractions from the athletic agenda are discouraged. From this perspective, an athlete’s “job” is to maximize their athletic performance to produce championships and fill sports arenas. Scholarship athletes in Division 1 programs are often expected to be single mindedly focused on this goal, and of course, get grades that enable them to maintain their athletic eligibility. In this context, little time or discussion is devoted to human rights or athlete activism in sport.
Being a member of a team and a representative of a school in the case of collegiate sport does require submitting to some common expectations and “rules” and coaches should make these expectations clear to team members. The rub, of course, is deciding what are reasonable expectations for team rules. Is it reasonable for a coach to forbid an athlete from: Speaking at an anti-war rally on campus? Assuming leadership of a campus political advocacy group? Coming out publicly as lesbian, gay or bisexual? Participating in a political protest? Wearing a style of clothes or choosing a hair style the coach objects to?
Coaches have amazing power over the athletes on their teams. Coaches decide who gets to play and who sits on the bench. Coaches are sometimes given incredible license to act in ways that would not be tolerated by a professor with students in the classroom or a supervisor with employees in the workplace. Screaming at an athlete nose to nose on national TV, shaking an athlete or in some other laying hands on them, throwing temper tantrums (and chairs or clipboards), using obscenities and slurs and any number of other behaviors that would not fly in another educational or professional context.
In response to such coach behavior, athletes have few options: suck it up and try harder, transfer and play at another school, quit the team and sport altogether, or in rare cases, bring a lawsuit if they don’t like the coach’s rules or treatment. They could complain to athletic administrators, but, if the coach has a winning tradition or the backing of powerful alumni, it takes a lot of courage to challenge a coach. An athlete in this situation sometimes can’t even count on teammates to back them up. Most athletes choose to suck it up. Some even believe that this kind of coach behavior is merely evidence of intensity and commitment, necessary components of motivation and a winning attitude. They might even be suspicious of a coach who didn’t act this way.
Because this description is reality for some athletic programs, the idea of protecting athletes’ rights in sport and encouraging athlete activism in or out of sport challenge some deeply embedded practices and beliefs in big time collegiate and professional athletics.
Sounds like a plan to me.
“Through innovative programming and extensive outreach that impacts thousands both locally and worldwide, Sport in Society uses the power and appeal of sport to foster diversity, prevent men’s violence against women, eradicate youth violence, and improve the health of disenfranchised urban youth, all of which are critical to the health and safety of our citizens.”
CSS is a long time leader in addressing multiple social justice issues in sport, including racism, sexism, homophobia/heterosexism, and ableism. I attended and gave a keynote speech at their Power of Sport Summit last summer. Human rights and athlete activism in sport were themes that ran through the entire conference.
Eli Wolff, the manager of research and advocacy at the center, sent me their newly developed Athlete Bill of Rights. The Sport in Society Athlete Bill of Rights focuses on the rights of athletes within athletics. One of the main goals of the Bill of Rights is to “empower athletes to advocate for their own rights” through open discussion and debate and through this process, encourage athlete activism.
Athletes are sometimes thought of as products owned by professional franchises or college athletic departments. Some coaches assume as their prerogative the power to control an athlete’s personal and political expression including how they spend their time out of the athletic context, and with whom they socialize. Potential distractions from the athletic agenda are discouraged. From this perspective, an athlete’s “job” is to maximize their athletic performance to produce championships and fill sports arenas. Scholarship athletes in Division 1 programs are often expected to be single mindedly focused on this goal, and of course, get grades that enable them to maintain their athletic eligibility. In this context, little time or discussion is devoted to human rights or athlete activism in sport.
Being a member of a team and a representative of a school in the case of collegiate sport does require submitting to some common expectations and “rules” and coaches should make these expectations clear to team members. The rub, of course, is deciding what are reasonable expectations for team rules. Is it reasonable for a coach to forbid an athlete from: Speaking at an anti-war rally on campus? Assuming leadership of a campus political advocacy group? Coming out publicly as lesbian, gay or bisexual? Participating in a political protest? Wearing a style of clothes or choosing a hair style the coach objects to?
Coaches have amazing power over the athletes on their teams. Coaches decide who gets to play and who sits on the bench. Coaches are sometimes given incredible license to act in ways that would not be tolerated by a professor with students in the classroom or a supervisor with employees in the workplace. Screaming at an athlete nose to nose on national TV, shaking an athlete or in some other laying hands on them, throwing temper tantrums (and chairs or clipboards), using obscenities and slurs and any number of other behaviors that would not fly in another educational or professional context.
In response to such coach behavior, athletes have few options: suck it up and try harder, transfer and play at another school, quit the team and sport altogether, or in rare cases, bring a lawsuit if they don’t like the coach’s rules or treatment. They could complain to athletic administrators, but, if the coach has a winning tradition or the backing of powerful alumni, it takes a lot of courage to challenge a coach. An athlete in this situation sometimes can’t even count on teammates to back them up. Most athletes choose to suck it up. Some even believe that this kind of coach behavior is merely evidence of intensity and commitment, necessary components of motivation and a winning attitude. They might even be suspicious of a coach who didn’t act this way.
Because this description is reality for some athletic programs, the idea of protecting athletes’ rights in sport and encouraging athlete activism in or out of sport challenge some deeply embedded practices and beliefs in big time collegiate and professional athletics.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
