The Olympics Are Coming!

The London Olympic Games begin in a little over a week so, of course, speculation begins about the number of openly LGBT athletes will be competing.  This Advocate article identifies a handful of openly lesbian and gay athletes who will be competing and I am sure this number will increase as we get closer to the opening ceremonies.  This number has topped out around 13-14 openly LGBT athletes in past Olympics and I hope that number will increase in London. Though the number of openly LGBT athletes is a small percentage of the thousands of athletes who will competing in London, it is safe to assume that there are many other LGBT athletes who will competing from the closet.  

Apparently, a heterosexual married couple who are on the Australian shooting team believe that there are huge numbers of same-sex couples who will rooming together in the Olympic village.  They claim that they are being discriminated against because, as heterosexuals, they are not allowed to room together in the athletes’ village and are making a big deal out of it.  Please.  Is this really how they want to spend their time preparing for their competition? Is this how they are making their mark on the London games? 

Like the Vancouver Olympics there will be a Pride House in London open to all athletes and other visitors. Pride House is not sponsored by the Olympics, but by a local group as was true in Vancouver. Nonetheless it does provide some LGBT visibility at an international sporting event.

Why does it matter if athletes come out publicly or if there is a Pride House at the Olympics? It’s about visibility and role models. It’s about athletes not needing to spend energy hiding and keeping secrets and using that energy to focus on the competition. It’s about being honest with teammates and true to yourself.  It’s about sending a message to young LGBT athletes that the world is changing and their future in sports looks better and better.  

 Oh, and that Aussie couple? Instead of crabbing about sleeping arrangements, they should count the many other privileges they have as married heterosexuals and stick to trying to shoot straight.

Keelin Godsey talks about his experience as transgender athlete

Keelin Godsey is a world class athlete who competes in the women’s hammer throw. Keelin recently placed fifth in the US Olympic Trials, narrowly missing the cut for the team going to London.  Keelin is a transgender man who has not made a medical transition so that he can continue to compete in the women’s hammer throw.  Not making a medical transition means that Keelin is not taking testosterone and has not undergone any surgical procedures as part of his transition.  

Keelin sat down for an interview with Ann Schatz after the trials:

 

Many people are confused by the thought that a transgender man would want to or be allowed to compete in women’s sports.  Some would say, “Ok, if you are a man, compete in the men’s hammer throw.” One of the many powerful parts of this interview is to hear Keelin talk about the importance of his identification as an athlete, and even more specifically, an elite hammer thrower. He talks about how being an athlete saved his life.  He talk about how being a hammer thrower is such an important part of his identity and a source of his positive feelings about himself.  I don’t see how you can listen to Keelin talk about this and not understand how devastating it would be to take away his opportunity to compete in his sport, women’s hammer throw.  

You also can get a little insight into the process of deciding to transition, whether that is a social transition and/or a medical transition. You also get a small insight into the internal struggles and social obstacles that transgender people face in and out of sport just to live their lives as their truth demands.  You feel the pain, the struggle, the courage and the determination to define yourself in opposition to powerful gender expectations that push us all into little boxes that limit our ability to see ourselves in any way that defies the gender binary we are taught is “normal.”

Keelin’s interview should be required viewing for anyone in sports who wants to learn, up close and personal, what it is like to be transgender and an athlete and to insist on the right to honor both parts of that identity.  

It is also important to recognize that Keelin’s story is his. Every trans athlete has her or his own story and that Keelin’s story is only one of a larger mosaic of transgender experience that is as diverse and personalized as any of our stories.  I recommend taking the 20 minutes necessary to watch and, more importantly, listen to Keelin. I promise you will come away with a deeper appreciation for what it means to be a transgender athlete.

U.S. Soccer Star Megan Rapinoe to the World: I’m Gay.

Megan Rapinoe, in an interview with Out Magazine, clarified a statement she made in an earlier interview with Kick TV that seemed like she was coming out, but only if you paid close attention.  The thing is she was not really closeted, but she wasn’t public about it either.  That has changed and it’s a great thing she is doing by coming out publicly now before the Olympics.  Megan Rapinoe is a great athlete and a very popular member of the US women’s soccer team. She decided to come out publicly in part because she understands her status as a role model for young people and wants to be part of changing the world for young LGBT people in sports.

She is comfortable with who she is. She has been out with teammates, friends and family for a while. Making the decision to be public about being gay feels like the right next step and why not? I can only hope that more women and men in sport make similar decisions about coming out publicly.  I am not in favor of outing public figures, but I love it when they decide to come out. We need their visibility to help change the sports world top to bottom.

Megan discusses some of her perceptions about the differences between coming out for female and male athletes: She believes that it is easier for women athletes to come out and be supported by their teammates than it is for gay men in sport.  I agree that it seems like women’s teams at the college, professional and Olympic levels are more accepting in general of lesbian teammates and coaches.  However, I think we also need to acknowledge that things are changing fast in men’s sports.  We cannot assume as we did a few years ago that it would be unthinkable for a gay man in a pro team sport to come out.  Cyd Zeigler’s interviews with NFL players indicate a big change among in pro football and these changes are mirrored in comments by other male pro team sport athletes as well. Change is afoot in men’s sports. 

Sometimes the media greet lesbian athletes’ coming out with a big yawn, as if it only matters now when gay male athletes come out.  Witness the incredible media frenzy recently when Wade Davis, a long retired NFL player came out as compared to the coming out of WNBA Star and Olympic team member, Seimone Augustus.  Wade Davis – interviews on CNN and hundreds of articles in the mainstream media.  Seimone Augustus? Crickets chirping in the night.  Do you seriously think her coming would have the same media response if she were an NBA player?

We cannot also assume that everything is cool for lesbians in women’s sports.  That would be a dangerous assumption.  In the last two years, we can point to several instances of discrimination against lesbian athletes or coaches in high school and college sports.  Golf coach, Katie Brenny’s lawsuit against the University of Minnesota is still going through the courts.  Let’s not forget Texas high school softball player, Skye Wyatt, who was kicked off her team and outed to her mother by her coach, whose actions were backed up by the school committee.  Remember Niki Williams the high school basketball coach (also in Texas) who was dismissed before she coached her first game because school administrators realized that she is lesbian.  Oh, yeah, and soccer coach Lisa Howe at Belmont University who was dismissed when school administrators found out her partner was having a baby. 

Negative recruiting based on perceived sexual orientation is still an issue in women college sports.  Sherri Murrell is still the only publicly out lesbian basketball coach in division 1 college hoops.  Only 42% of women’s college teams are coached by women these days. That makes it difficult for lesbian coaches to come out if they think it might jeopardize their jobs or their ability to recruit which will also jeopardize their jobs.

Maybe we do not see the same level of anti-gay name-calling in women’s sports that we do in men’s sports, but it is there.  Among softball players you might have noticed an increase in hair ribbons worn during games? There is a saying among women softball players, “No bow? Lesbo.”  One softball player told me about a straight teammate who freaked out when she realized that she forgot to bring her bow to an away game.  What kind of welcoming climate do you think that makes for a gay softball player?

 I could go on, but I hope you see my point: Megan Rapinoe’s coming out matters.  We still have prejudice and discrimination to fight in women’s sports. Let’s not forget that it still takes courage and a willingness to be in the spotlight for something other than your athletic ability for an athlete who is actively competing to come out, female or male.  Thank you, Megan. Let’s hope your coming out empowers more LGBT athletes and coaches to do the same.

We still have work to do in women’s and men’s sports before any athlete, male or female, coming out is not a big deal.

40 Years and Counting: Title IX and the Road to Equality

This week we celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the passage of Title IX.  For anyone who still does not know what Title IX is – it’s a federal law passed in 1972 that prohibits sex discrimination in education.  Perhaps the biggest area of Title IX’s impact is high school and college athletics.  I will leave it to others to cite the vast increase in the participation of girls and women in sports since 1972. It is impressive. The sports landscape for girls and women in the United States as a result of Title IX is much improved over the last 40 years. 

Despite this progress, girls’ and women’s sports have still not achieved parity with boys’ and men’s sports, both of which have continued to grow.   No matter the facts, Title IX opponents claim that Title IX has a negative impact on sports programs for boys and men.

When athletic programs cut men’s sports teams, the administrators making these decisions often blame Title IX rather than accepting responsibility for their decisions.  Too often the force behind these decisions is the increasingly untenable believe that men’s football and basketball programs must be protected at all costs. 

In fact, we are in the midst of an unprecedented arms race in which colleges are spending buckets of bucks to upgrade men’s football and basketball. The folly of these decisions is that few college football programs actually make money and their  revenues do not support other sports. Most football programs produce revenue, but they do not make a profit. Football in the vast majority of schools is a costly sport to maintain.  This phantom profit is used as the justification for spending more and more money on football.  It is much easier for administrators to blame Title IX for the elimination of so-called men’s “minor” sports like wrestling, swimming,  tennis and even baseball than to own up to the greed and duplicity that drive these decisions.

Title IX has the overwhelming support of the general public. This includes the moms and dads who have daughters and sons who play school sports.  At its most fundamental level Title IX speaks to these parents who wouldn’t think of discriminating against one of their children at the expense of the other. 

My favorite test of assessing equity between men’s and women’s sports programs in a school is this: Would the participants and coaches in one gender’s athletic program happily trade places with and participate in the athletic program of the other gender.  If all resources, media coverage, scheduling, support mechanisms, etc. are equal, this would be an easy decision.  Unfortunately, in many schools the truth is that boys and men would never trade because they know it would be a step down to accept what the girls and women have.

So while we celebrate the progress Title IX has brought, let us not forget that we are still on the journey to equality in sports for women and men. We still have a lot of work to do.  We still need to be vigilant.  Those of us who are committed to equality and social justice in sport should take a moment to celebrate how far we have come and then get back on the road to achieving real equality in sport.

Nike Hosts LGBT Sports Summit

I am very proud to be a part of a first ever event - A Summit on LGBT sports hosted by Nike.  Read the blog that Helen Carroll of NCLR, Cyd Zeigler of Outsports and I wrote about this event here.

Update on Lesbian Golf Coach’s Lawsuit Against the University of Minnesota

In December, 2010 I blogged about a lawsuit filed by Katie Brenny, a lesbian golf coach at the University of Minnesota who alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation.  Included in the lawsuit were charges against the Director of Golf at the time, John Harris.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals has dismissed the charges against Harris, who is no longer at the U.  Brenny's lawsuit also includes charges of discrimination against the Board of Regents, alleging violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and one count against both the university and Harris, alleging that they misrepresented the job to her in violation of Minnesota law. These part of the lawsuit are still active.  Brenny’s lawyer minimized the importance of this dismissal since Harris’s actions will be examined by the court as part of the lawsuit that is still active.  More on this as it unfolds.

Coaching and Preaching: When the Football Field Becomes A Church

Ron Brown, an assistant football coach at the University of Nebraska, has been on the public hot seat since he spoke against a proposed Omaha city ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  In his testimony, Brown listed his address as Memorial Stadium and lectured the city council about their lack of adherence to Biblical principles and the dangers of protecting people that he believes God says are an abomination.  Brown has received lots of media criticism for his public rant and has prompted several LGBT sports advocates and mainstream sports commentators to call for his firing. In response to criticism, Brown self-righteously proclaimed that it would be an honor to be fired for his religious principles. 

First, is there any question in anyone’s mind whether anyone would give a rat’s patoot what Ron Brown thinks if he were not a University of Nebraska football coach?  Is there anyone who seriously believes that Ron Brown is not using his position as a football coach as a platform to publicly express his personal beliefs?

The question is not whether Ron Brown has a right hold and to express his personal religious and political views. Of course he does. Ron Brown and others who try to turn this into an issue of religious discrimination are completely missing the point here.  The issues at the heart of this controversy are twofold:  One, where do we draw the line when a public employee, such as a football coach at a state university, holds personal views that are in conflict with the policies of the public institution where he is employed. Two, what are the expectations with regard to a public employee’s expression of personal religious beliefs in her or his professional role.

The University of Nebraska has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.  Public school employees, which Ron Brown is as a coach at a public university, are subject to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution meaning that as a public employee he is required to be neutral with regard to religion in the carrying out of his professional duties.  The university President has publicly distanced himself and the university from Brown’s statements while acknowledging Brown’s right as a private citizen to express his views as he chooses. Fair enough, but that is not what is going on here.

It seems there is some confusion at Nebraska about what “religious neutrality” means: Ron Brown’s outgoing voice message on his university office phone includes a liberal dose of his religious beliefs. He listed the university football stadium as his home address when he spoke before the Omaha city council.  His bio on the Huskers football web site includes the following:

“Off the field, Brown and former Husker Stan Parker are co-founders and co-directors of a statewide Christian ministry called Mission Nebraska. This ministry stewards MY BRIDGE RADIO, which consists of numerous Christian radio stations and translators across Nebraska. Mission Nebraska also facilitates a statewide Christian endeavor called FreedMen, which challenges and inspires men and boys to take a strong courageous Christian stand in the public square. The 54-year-old Brown spent the four years prior to his return to coaching serving as the Nebraska State Director of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. While he relinquished that duty to return to the Cornhuskers, he continues as a regular columnist for FCA's National Magazine "Sharing the Victory." Through Mission Nebraska, Brown also hosts a weekly statewide cable TV show called "Truth Vision", along with daily radio spots…He has authored several books on Christian character and growth. He is an outspoken advocate on many issues, including adoption, abstinence and drug and alcohol education, race relations and anti-pornography, to name a few.”

Brown freely acknowledges that he routinely sprinkles in Biblical references in his coaching and conversations with his players. He claims that his religious talk does not bother his athletes. Really?  How would he know? What does he expect them to say to their coach, someone who has power over their access to playing time?  What about the Jews or Muslims or atheists on his team, how do they feel about his open promotion of Christianity on the football field?  How free do they feel to challenge the coach?

Brown is also now vowing that he would not discriminate against a gay player on the football team despite his opposition to homosexuality and laws that protect them from discrimination.  Am I missing something? He publicly condemns anti-discrimination laws, yet he expects us to believe he would have no problem coaching a gay player?

This is not the first time Ron Brown has been accused of violating his position as a prominent public employee.  He has also come under fire in the past from the American Civil Liberties Union for promoting Christianity in speeches at public schools. Ron Brown is not the first and certainly won’t be the last coach to be so public about his private religious views.  Coaches mixing religion and sports in public educational institutions is a common practice despite the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Athletes have long tolerated coach-led team prayers; team prayer breakfasts; coaches urging athletes to attend Bible studies; coaches using Biblical quotes mixed in with the motivational speeches; unlimited access of sports ministries, like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, to athletes on school teams; as well as outright discrimination against or condemnation of lesbian and gay coaches and athletes – all in the guise of “saving” souls.

Ron Brown is a fervent Christian who believes he and others who believe exactly what he does have a direct line to God.  He has somehow confused the football field with a church and his position as a coach with that of a pastor.  The problem is that we are wasting too much outrage on Ron Brown for this.  We should be spending a lot more attention focused on the head football coach and the university president at the University of Nebraska.  The head coach’s silence and the university president’s bland assurances that Ron Brown has a right to his personal views even if the university does not agree with them ignore the blatant disregard for federally mandated expectations that Ron Brown’s actions exemplify. 

Brown was mixing Cornhusker football and Christianity in clear violation of his obligations as a public employee before he decided to testify against city ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination.  The evidence is there on his office phone voice message, in this coaching bio, in his own acknowledgment of his use of Biblical quotes in coaching.  What more do Nebraska officials need?  What does it take for them to demand that their employees, including assistant football coaches, adhere to the requirements and expectations of religious neutrality?   Clearly, if the rights of students of all religious and all sexual orientations are to be protected in public schools, administrators need to make clear what is expected and take action if any employee violates the principle that every student, athlete or not, has the right to attend a public school free of religious influence from their professors and their coaches.

Other Christian coaches may believe homosexuality is a sin, but also believe that everyone on their team should be treated with respect.  They live their faith, but they do not shove it in the faces of their athletes. They do not advocate against legal protection for those they see as sinners or use their position as coaches as a pulpit from which to preach their religious beliefs. They live their faith, especially the part about treating others with love and respect, without proselytizing. 

Ron Brown does not understand this distinction and his employers have failed to insist that, in order to abide by the law, he must.